[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: clarification

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

ok, so i seem my clarification actually did the reverse. 

when i said the CAM proposal "allows for a Registry or RSP  to own up to 100% 
of a Registrar (and vice-versa) if the Registrar or its affiliates do not 
distribute that TLD" it reads as if this 100% ownership is allowed WITHOUT the 
CESP review process. That is not correct, and that accounts for Avri's 
objections. What I was trying to clarify is that in ADDITION to allowing 100% 
CO when no self-distribution is involved, it allows a TLD to distribute its own 
TLD through the same process. My intention was to say was that there was no 
difference in the process. I got the impression that some people assumed that 
the CESP process was ONLY about CO and not about VI. 

Apologies to all for throwing this temporary confusion into the pot. 

--MM
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Milton L Mueller [mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2010 8:50 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] clarification

In response to some discussions regarding the CAM proposal, I want to say that 
it allows for a Registry or RSP  to own up to 100% of a Registrar (and 
vice-versa) if the Registrar or its affiliates do not distribute that TLD, and 
that defined steps to mitigate harm are taken along with penalties and 
sanctions. If the Registry or RSP would like to distribute the TLD through the 
co-owned Registrar they would need to go through the CESP process as described 
in the CAM proposal. This was not stated explicitly in our original email 
because we did not see why anyone would object to 100% co-ownership if there 
was no distribution of the TLD.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org