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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am in not way an official reporter of anything.  

The third group, mentioned for completeness sake, did not come up with any 
molecules.  Instead we focused on compliance possibility to a deep extent 
partly because some of our solution required compliance to ever be viable.

I think the opinions were split between those who felt there was no way ICANN 
could ever be able to manage such compliance.

Others of us, myself, included felt that it was possible as long as the 
conditions wee defined and the will and money were provided.  To be honest, to 
many, that was the same as saying it wasn't possible.

One sub-theme that had currency among at least a few of us was that any 
compliance effort would be aided by requirements for extreme transparency of 
operations.  A variant of the expression was (and i sort of misquote), we won't 
worry so much about someone who can walk into a glass house naked to try and 
steal.

a.

On 20 Jun 2010, at 09:25, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

> 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.)
>>> 
>> 
>