Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Proposal

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

The Belgium Amalgam?


Btw,  I support this proposal.  I think prohibitions on RSPs make less sense 
than they do on ROs  -    given, as you state,  a rule that prevents the RSP 
from controlling registry policy.  

The only issue then is data security (queries,  lookups,  etc).   I think the 
accreditation system you propose would fix that.

I like this compromise because it allows registrars to participate in the 
registry services business,  but not control the actual registry operator.

RT  


On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 
> VI WG Colleagues:
> 
> Here is a very high level proposal that is coming out of our subgroup 
> conversations (not every member of the subgroup supports)
> 
> We are looking for a catchy name -- any ideas?  (nothing offensive Milton)
> 
> 
> New Proposal
> 
> **15% restriction going both ways, including resellers and Registry Service 
> Providers (Back-end technical service providers) regardless of TLD -- taken 
> from RACK
> 
> **Exception for Single Registrant Single User for corporate use only -- (sub 
> group believed that exception was not necessary as registry schedule of 
> reserved names already provides for this, but good to have in contract for 
> clarity) -- mostly taken from JN2
> 
> **Exception for back-end (RSP) IF a) RSP doesn't control registry or its 
> policy, pricing and registrar selection; b) there is structural separation 
> between RSP function and affiliated registrar function; AND c) RSP has direct 
> contract with ICANN requiring data security/confidentiality/structural 
> separation with graduated sanctions including de-accreditation for any 
> violations -- new idea
> 
> **Use of registrars required; registry may select based on objective 
> criteria; Non Discrimination & Equal Access for registrars selected -- taken 
> from JN2
> 
> **Group continues work on Single Registrant Multiple User and 
> Community/Orphan exceptions -- not necessary to be in place at time of final 
> AG
> 
> 
> Looking forward to discussing on Thursday.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Jon