RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:54:35 -0400
See comments embedded. Alan
At 02/07/2010 02:34 PM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
I also like the idea of exploring exceptions including the SRSU
model as described below, but I have a more fundamental question on
Why is there no question or discussion on compliance abilities with
regard to SRSU or other exceptions but arms start flying when other
types of co-ownership are brought up
I thought that Eric's message timestamped 2 Jul 2010 06:15:20 -0400
didjust raised just that issue.
? When I look at the idea of a Registry being able to own a
Registrar but not be able to sell the TLD it owns it is actually
simple to monitor, since the Registrar and affiliates could not be
accredited in that TLD. If it is not accredited it cannot register
any names. With mandatory thick whois, the Registrar of record is
displayed. All very easy to monitor.
And easy to circumvent. See my earlier example of how through the use
a captive resellers.
The SRSU model (which I said is worth exploring) has an incredible
number of moving parts that need to be monitored and by many
estimates there are expected to be over 200 .brand TLDs, yet the
compliance issues and harms are not brought up.
What is it about .brand SRSU TLDs that make it easier to monitor and
protect than another TLD that allows cross-ownership?