RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 
> these exceptions.
> 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?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jeff Eckhaus