Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Agenda item offer

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

Thanks, as usual, for the continued questions.

On 5/10/10 12:24 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> Ok. So this is a new (to the spreadsheet) proposal whose primary
> elements are:
> 
> 1.    Registries must competitively  outsource their techical operations
> to 2 or more backed providers


No. Registries must not sole-source the technical operations, whether
the registry and its technical operations appear as a single business
unit, e.g., the com/net/name, info, and biz monopoly operations, or
the registry is a distinct (or not so distinct) legal entity, e.g.,
asia, travel, jobs, and of course cat.

You, registry operator for .rti (Richard Tindal, Inc.) must allow
registrants, and registrars (void, if .rti is one of those partially
defined "SR" thingies, which lack both registrants and registrars) for
.rti to select among .rti-qualified back end providers.

So, some duty to abstract the .rti's technical interface so that it
isn't inseparably bound to one particular technical service provider,
and some duty to allow equal access.


> 2.    The registry may not own more than 15% (or in some other way
> control) any of its  back end providers.

Nope. The 15% cap is for registrars forming the registry operator, the
legal entity, so an Afilias model that never shrunk from 7 or more
slices to 2 slices of equity pizza pie.


So, Yes, with corrections to your #1. No to your #2.

Eric


> Is that it?
> 
> RT
> 
> Hope all is well at the hospital
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On May 10, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams
> <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Richard,
>>
>> We don't actually have language which requires a registry operator to
>> de-integrate from their backend registry services platform. There is
>> nothing in any other proposal to require the .com registry operator to
>> provide access to any provider other the Atlas operator (Versign's
>> registry services platform).
>>
>> You many have missed it on the webinar concall prior to Seoul but I
>> discussed the relation of backend providers and vertical integration
>> with Joe Simms, it was the only question asked about CORE's proposal,
>> which I thought interesting.
>>
>> I just got a go-to-hospital call, so I'm not going to make either
>> today's VI call, or today's tdg-legal call.
>>
>> Craig, I've cc'd you because of the tdg-legal call schedule.
>>
>> Eric
> 
>