Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] .ROYAL prezzo

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

I really appreciate this follow up . As an accountant I seriously question this 
upper limit of 15% level . Just because it has been set at this level in the 
past , why should "we " continue with it ? I equate this VI structure to a 
group accounting structure and the most important thing is to define "control, 
" voting rights " and " shareholdings ".  I think Scott (?)  started to raise 
this issue today . Would like to continue to discuss this "topic" Wednesday. 
There also seems to be misinterpretations on the word " audit " .

Need to go - as I have to run my brothers' robotics business in UK,  whilst he 
is stuck in Malawi due to the closure of Heathrow from volcanic dust cloud. ! 

Cheers 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Tindal 
  To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:09 AM
  Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] .ROYAL prezzo


  Phil B,


  I wanted to follow up on the comments I made during your presentation today,  
because I didn't do a good job explaining myself -- and I think it's 
  important these concepts are well understood by everyone in the WG.  


  In a couple of places you mingled (you may have even co-mingled) the ideas 
of:  1) Equivalent Registrar Access;  and (2)  Cross Ownership.


  Equivalent Registrar Access is a long standing principle (it has been in all 
TLD contracts so far) that says the registry will:


  a.  make its TLD available to all interested registrars who meet the 
registry's requirements; and
  b.  treat those registrars on a non-discriminatory basis; and 
  c.  sell names only through those registrars  


  This doesn't mean you would have to sell .ROYAL through every registrar that 
shows up.  You could set reasonable requirements associated with your TLD and 
only do business with registrars who  comply   (just as .MOBI and others do 
today).


  Equivalent Registrar Access is behind the GNSO's New gTLD Implementation 
Recommendation 19 which says  "Registries must use only ICANN accredited 
registrars in registering domain names and may not discriminate among such 
accredited registrars".      The Nairobi Board resolution (that initiated this 
WG)  did not raise the issue of Equivalent Registrar Access,  though it has 
been discussed in the WG - notably in the context of Single Registrant Single 
User TLDs.


  Cross Ownership is the extent of mutual ownership (and/or control) permitted 
between registries and registrars (as well as any holding companies).    At 
it's simplest level it asks  - Can your .ROYAL registry also own a registrar 
company that sells .ROYAL names?  ICANN Registry contracts have historically 
varied on this issue of Cross Ownership, though most currently limit it to 15%. 
 




  The two concepts aren't exclusive though.   We could permit 100% Cross 
Ownership but still require Equivalent Registrar Access,  which might mean 10 
registrars meet your requirements to sell .ROYAL names and you (the registry) 
happen to own one of those registrars.  Equivalent Registrar Access would mean 
your registry couldn't favour its own registrar (if it did so it would be in 
breach of its registry contract).   




  To throw in a third concept that's being discussed (let's call it Strict 
Separation) some proposals, such as PIR's, take an even tougher line on 
Equivalent Registrar Access.  Those proposals require, in addition to the 
contractual prohibition on discrimination, a strict operational and financial 
separation of registry company and registrar company assets, as well as audits. 
   


  Wanted to make sure all that is clear.    Apologize to  WG members who are 
already very familiar with this,  but I suspect there are some in the WG who 
are not.


  RT