RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Molecules 1 and 2........

["Brian Cute" <briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very nice summary Richard.  If I may add two small tweaks for clarification
(hopefully).  See below in blue font.

 

Regards,

Brian

 

From: Richard Tindal [mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx] 
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 5:01 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Molecules 1 and 2........

 

Mikey/ Roberto,

 

Here's a summary of today's consensus from the sub-group I was in.     After
this, I  provide a summary of the sub-group next to us.    (Note:  a
Registry Operator is the entity that holds the registry contact with ICANN
-- an RSP is a vendor who may provide registry services to the Registry
Operator):  

 

OUR CONSENSUS

 

1.     LIMITS APPLY ACROSS ALL TLDS.    Limits must apply regardless of the
TLD operated by the Registry Operator,  and regardless of the TLD(s) the
Registrar is accredited in.   In other words,  the group endorsed the Board
and DAG 4 language that says rules will apply across all TLDs,  and there is
no exception if the Registrar doesn't sell the TLD operated by their
affiliated Registry Operator.     The group believed that making such an
exception would be equivalent of allowing close to 100% cross-ownership,  as
ICANN staff are not resourced or trained to properly control the many gaming
scenarios Registrars could employ to sell the names in their affiliated
Registry's TLD.   

 

2.     NO CONTROL REGARDLESS OF          OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE.  There can be
no control (as defined by DAG 4) between a Registrar and a Registry
Operator, or between a Registry Operator and a Registrar, regardless of
cross ownership percentages.   

 

3.     15% OWNERSHIP LIMIT.   In addition to 2. (above),  there can be no
more than 15% ownership of a Registry Operator by a Registrar,  or a
Registrar by a Registry Operator.   This limit recognizes that, even absent
control,  a Registry Operator may be incented to favor a Registry with whom
they have significant cross-ownership  (the group defined significant as
higher than 15%).  

 

4.     SINGLE REGISTRANT/  SINGLE USER TLD.   A Single Registrant, Single
User (SRSU) TLD is one where the Registry Operator sets a policy where
second level names can only be registered to the Registry Operator.  Also,
the use of those names in terms of website content,  email control,  or any
other application associated with the domains, is exercised only by the
Registry Operator.  As a practical matter this means the Registry Operator
is not providing second level names to other parties (who would have control
over website content,  email use,  etc).      We believe the registry
contract in the current DAG already provides for this type of registry via
the schedule of registry reserved names (which could be added to as the
Registry Operator and ICANN agree).   If there is perceived ambiguity about
the applicability of this contract provision we believe the contract should
be amended to explicitly allow for this type of SRSU TLD.   If the DAG
cannot be amended in this way,  we believe there should be an exception to
rules 1. to 3. (above) that allows the SRSU Registry Operator to have: (1)
100% control of a Registrar in their TLD;  and (ii)  no obligation to
provide equal access to other Registrars. This exception is for the
registration of names as described above.  No sale of names to the public is
contemplated.

 

5.    RSPs.   Currently,  we do not have consensus about the applicability
of rules 1. to 3. to RSPs.   A proposal was made that if RSPs undertook a
form of RSP accreditation with ICANN,  and agreed to a set of significant
sanctions directly with ICANN (should they be in breach of their obligations
for such things as data integrity) that we might recommend 100% control of
RSPs by Registrars (or vice versa).     Such an 'amendment' was not yet
agreed by the group - but there was considerable interest in it.

 

 

THE SUB-GROUP NEXT TO US

 

There was considerable agreement between our Sub-Group and the Sub-Group to
our immediate left.  I think Gray was Reporter for that group.

 

Let me try to summarize their position --  but if i misrepresent anything
they should step in:   

 

 

1.     LIMITS APPLY ACROSS ALL TLDS.    They endorse this.

 

 

2.     NO CONTROL REGARDLESS OF          OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE.  They also
endorse this.

 

 

3.     15% OWNERSHIP LIMIT.   They are more focused on control and less on
ownership percentage.  In a sense then, they are less concerned about the
influence that can be exerted at lower ownership levels (absent control) and
they are more concerned about the harms that can emerge when actual control
is present.     For example,  they might be OK with 49% cross-ownership,  as
long as control did not exist.    They might also be OK with greater than
50% ownership as long as control did not exist       (GRAY --  I DONT THINK
I GOT THE FULL NUANCE OF THIS SO PLEASE STEP IN)

 

4.     SINGLE REGISTRANT/  SINGLE USER TLD.   They did not reach consensus
on this approach.

 

5.     RSPs.   They did not reach consensus on this approach,  but had some
interest in the 'amendment idea' floated by our group.

 

 

Comments and clarifications are welcome from all memberS of the two
Sub-Groups in question.

 

Thx

 

Richard T

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Jun 19, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:





hi all,

Roberto and i will present a very sketchy status report (i'll push a draft
along in a few minutes).  it would be great to have a 1 or 2 page summary of
the two "molecules" proposals that came out in the second session that could
be inserted.  AND it would be great to have WG members there to answer
questions (since there's a lot of nuance to those answers, plus it would be
another opportunity to collect feedback and ideas).

so...

a) yep it would be great to have those summaries from the two of you -- i
probably need them by 8am tomorrow in order to get a file in order and
pushed along to Margie/Marika.

b) i uploaded the pictures of the flip-chart pages to the wiki -- here's the
link --
https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?flip_chart_photos#
<https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?flip_chart_photos> 

c) yep, it would be great if folks could come to the meeting and be willing
to join the conversation -- we have an hour and 15 minutes on the agenda and
our status update will take a small fraction of that.  t'would also be a
good run-through for the Wednesday general-public session.

thanks!

(bleary) mikey


On Jun 19, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:




 

On that note as well, Mikey, can you send me the pictures you took of the
Molecule from our subgroup.

 

Thanks.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman 

Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

 

 

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
delete the original message.

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal

Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 4:57 PM

To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] FYI -- our "update the GNSO Council" slot --
scheduled for 9-10:15am

 

 

Mikey,

 

You'd like each of the three sub-groups,  from today,  to provide a summary
of their molecule,  right?

 

For Wed,  are you and Roberto the only ones presenting,  or are you calling
on others to also present?

 

RT

 

 

On Jun 19, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

 

 

hi all,

 

just a quick note -- the schedule calls for us to update the GNSO council
tomorrow at 9-10:15am.  Room 311.

 

mikey

 

 

- - - - - - - - -

phone 651-647-6109  

fax                   866-280-2356  

web     www.haven2.com

handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)

 

 

 


- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109  
fax                   866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)