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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Kathy,

With respect to issue 1.  you're advocating a more conservative position than 
the Registry Constituency Supermajority proposed in 2009.  

What is the rationale for not allowing more cross ownership in 'other' TLDs?   

As example questions,  what harm do you see in Neustar (say) owning a registrar 
that sells .COM?   What harm do you see in eNom owning a registry for a TLD 
that its registrar does not sell?

RT



On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 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!
> Find us on Facebook | dotorg
> See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
> See our video library on YouTube
>  
> 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
>  
>  
>  
>