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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I still have on my thirst. What explains this variante or how to put this
option on the legal aspect?



SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                          +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/6/23 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>

>  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
>