RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New proposal variant

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the clarification and pointing that out . Makes sense

Jeff

________________________________________
From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 2:31 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; VI
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New proposal variant

My proposal said that it would be made public. But note that this
(disclosure and contract requirement) is not for all resellers, but
those resellers (direct or nested) that are controlled/owned.

Given that ICANN compliance does not have law-enforcement search or
discovery abilities, whistle-blower or third-party ability to
complain is an important component of compliance.

Alan

At 23/06/2010 05:08 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>Alan,
>
>I have one question on the proposal below. When you state that
>resellers must be disclosed, is this a public disclosure so that
>everyone can see this or that it is submitted to ICANN on a
>confidential basis?
>
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Jeff
>
>________________________________________
>From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 1:51 AM
>To: VI
>Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New proposal variant
>
>I would like to propose a variant. It could be applied to a proposal
>that allows registry/registrar integration for marketing TLDs other
>than those offered by the registry (such as JN2) or perhaps to allow
>the "Afilias et al" proposal to allow such relationships. The
>proposal provides more specificity to my previous statements that VI
>rules could be relaxed if the registrars involved in the VI
>relationship were bound by explicit contractual conditions.
>
>In essence, it puts disclosure and reporting requirements on the
>registrar and its partners (partners being loosely defined) and
>explicitly commits them to not deal, directly or indirectly, in
>their registry's own TLDs.
>
>Any registrar involved (with >15% ownership or control) must
>disclose the details of:
>- Their family of registrars - owned or controlled (same definition)
>by them, or co-owned/controlled.
>- All owned/controlled resellers that they deal with, directly or indirectly.
>
>All of these entities will be bound by direct contract with ICANN to
>abide by a set of rules (which among others proscribe dealing with
>the domain(s) offered by the registry arm). The ownership/control
>relationships will be made public. There would be a requirement for
>ongoing reports certifying compliance and strict, severe penalties
>for non-compliance.
>
>Among other things, this would contractually restrict two cases
>which previous proposals have not addressed.
>
>a) Consider the scenario where J owns registry X and registrar Y. X
>and Y are both owned by J but are not otherwise related. As such,
>the registry agreement signed by X can in no way bind Y. This
>variant now binds Y to specific disclosure and reporting terms
>associated with VI.
>
>b) Registry X and registrar Y have some sort of >15$ ownership or
>control. Y has a controlled reseller R. R also resells for a
>completely unrelated registry P. Under prior rules, R could market
>the X TLDs (routing registrations through P). This variant precludes
>such marketing arrangements.
>
>In summary this proposal variant puts new contractual marketing
>restrictions, disclosure and reporting terms on those registrars who
>want to play in the VI sandbox. It also requires contracts with
>controlled resellers. These are just agreement to restrict
>marketing, disclosure and reporting requirements, and not monetary,
>so they do not form a new class of "contracted party". One could
>think of this as a form of certification of such resellers.
>
>The overall intent is not to eliminate any potential gaming -
>nothing can do that. But it does give ICANN compliance a basis to
>recognize potential infractions and, if found, it gives them tools
>to achieve compliance.
>
>This proposal variant is being suggested without being fully fleshed
>out, but given the timing, I thought it should go out earlier rather
>than later.
>
>Alan