RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal - to Richard Tindal's question

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Richard,  Yes and yes (see below).

Best,

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

From: Richard Tindal [mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:15 PM
To: Kathy Kleiman; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Innovative Proposal - to Richard Tindal's question

 

Thanks Kathy.  

 

Two final clarifications:

 

1.   Like current registry contracts your proposal limits ownership to 15% 
regardless of the TLD in question  (unlike some other WG proposals that focus 
the 15% cross ownership limit only on the registry's TLD).     Is that correct? 
 

à Yes 

 

2.   Your proposal uses language that limits registries from owning registrars 
but you're actually talking about any form of reciprocal ownership  (e.g.  
registrars owning registries,  ownership stakes by separate holding companies), 
 right? 

à and Yes. 

 

RT

 

 

On Apr 15, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:





Sorry, hit enter too quickly on last message and it was incomplete. Here's the 
full message:

 

Hi Richard,

Tx for the question and reminder  J.  As you have correctly concluded, in our 
Main Model (which we assume will apply to the vast majority of new gTLDs):

1.       Per existing agreements with ICANN, a Registry can own  up to 15% of 
any ICANN-accredited registrar.

2.       Save for the narrow exceptions outside the Main Model, a registry 
cannot act as a registrar in its own TLD.

3.       Third and to your point, yes, our proposal allows a Registry to sell 
domain names through the registrar in which it owns up to 15% in that TLD. That 
is the rule in agreements today, and that is the rule we propose continue.  
Please note that we do require an overlay of "structural separation." Lest 
there be any question of how much control, influence or direction might be 
possible through that 15% ownership share , we require full structural, 
operational and financial separation. That is to continue the level playing 
field between the registry and all ICANN-accredited registrars.

 

Best,

Kathy

 

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg 
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

On Apr 13, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

 

Hi Kathy,

 

Your proposal uses language from existing contracts,  e.g.  'Registry Operator 
shall not act as a registrar with respect to their TLD'.   However as others 
(Jon N and Jeff N) have noted,  this language contains some ambiguity.    

 

You're saying a registry can cross-own up to 15% of a registrar.  That's clear.

 

You're saying the registry entity itself (the registry corporation) cannot act 
as a registrar in its own TLD.  That's also clear.

 

What's not clear is whether a registrar that is 14% (say) cross owned by the 
registry can operate as a registrar in that TLD.      Do you intend that (1) 
cross-owned registrars below the 15% threshold CAN sell names in the TLD in 
question,   or are you taking a stricter approach that says (2)  no cross-owned 
registrar of any ownership percentage can sell names in the registry's TLD?

 

I'm assuming it's (1) -  but wanted to be 100% clear.

 

Richard