ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Merged Proposal

  • To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Merged Proposal
  • From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:22:05 -0400

Eric:

I haven't discussed this with Jeff, but I don't consider this to be an 
exception to Recommendation 19 at all.  All names must be registered under the 
terms of the RAA and related consensus policies.  Please see the discussion 
Avri and I had a couple of weeks ago related to whether this was an exception 
to Rec. 19 or an interpretation of Rec. 19.  Thanks.

Jon



On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:14 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy