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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

An extremely useful summary Richard, thanks.

Stéphane

Le 19 juin 2010 à 23:01, Richard Tindal a écrit :

> 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 
> 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. 
> 
> 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#
>> 
>> 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.)
>> 
>