Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] a question on the rack + proposal

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

 Dear Tim,

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Siva,
>
> RACK+ is not a new name for the Afilias proposal. It is a completely new
> proposal developed by Kathy, Brian, Ron, and myself.
>
> Our intent with RACK+ is that a Registry Operator may also own and
> operate the registry back-end
>



> , or they may use a third party service
> provider for that, or any part of it (DNS, database, etc.).



> However,
> they cannot use a service provider in which a registrar has more than
> 15% ownership.
>

Can't use a service provider in which the registrAR has more than 15% , but
Can any Registry use a Service provider in which any other registRY has more
than 15%?

This is unmentioned in the proposal and still not clear from your answer.

Thanks
Sivasubramanian M




> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] a question on the rack + proposal
> From: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, June 13, 2010 12:21 am
> To: "<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hello
>
> The Affilias proposal now known as Rack +  proposes the following:
>
> 1. ICANN to permit 15% cross ownership between Registrars and Registries
> 2. ICANN to permit 15% cross ownership between Registrars and Registry
> Back-end service providers
>
> Between Registries and Registry Back-end services?
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>