[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: clarification
- To: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: clarification
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 14:56:10 -0400
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.
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
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.
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
Internet Governance Project: