Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Merged Proposal

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jon, and naturally enough, I didn't ask about the SR terms.

Is it correct then to characterize this proposal's community-based
type policy recommendation as an exception to Recommendation 19 to the
30k point?

If so, at 30k+1, what happens to the exception to Recommendation 19,
and to the ownership, and control, however measured, for the
community-based type policy recommendation?

Eric


On 4/26/10 12:02 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
> 
> Eric, 
> 
> First 18 months, 15% cap unless:
> 
> Single Registrant -- SR and employees only (no 3rd parties)
> Community -- fewer than 30k names
> Orphan -- good faith showing of no interest and fewer than 30K names
> 
> 
> After 18 months, 15% cap unless:
> 
> ICANN amends criteria based on community and external inputs. 
> 
> 
> One important distinction is that our proposal permits any entity to apply to 
> be a RO, they just can't distribute the names through an affiliated registrar 
> (ICANN accredited or not) unless they fall in one of the exceptions or the 
> criteria is changed after 18 months.  Other proposals wouldn't permit certain 
> entities from even applying to be a RO.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> Corrections sought. I'm attempting to understand sections 4 and 5, and
>> ignoring sections 7 and 8 for the time being.
>>
>> If application type == standard, then a 15% cap, for the initial 18
>> months or more, unless "orphan", by self-assertion while total
>> registrations < 30,000.
>>
>> If application type == community-based, then no cap for the initial 18
>> months or more, while total registrations < 30,000.
>>
>> After month 18, no cap for any type through individual request.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Eric
>>
> 
> 
> 
>