[gnso-vi-feb10] the "it excludes some applicants" argument

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I've heard comments that some WG proposals would exclude registrars from 
participating in the registry business.  Having re-read the DAG language I 
wanted to push back on that notion -- and stimulate some discussion on the 
topic.

I've thought for some time now the Staff and Board have become very 
sophisticated in their understanding of the cross-ownership issue.   Given 
this, I think the DAG 4 language is very carefully worded so that it does not 
place limits on 'ownership' of a registry by a registrar.  Rather,  it places 
limits on 'beneficial ownership',  which is more akin to limits on control.

As I review the DAG language it seems clear a registrar could own as much of a 
registry as it wanted,  and enjoy any operating profits from that registry, as 
long as its 'beneficial ownership' was  limited.  Beneficial ownership includes 
voting rights or the ability to sell shares.     If the DAG had meant to place 
limits purely on ownership I think it would have used the term "ownership" -  
and not the more specific concept of "beneficial ownership".   

If the DAG language is applied then none of the proposals before this WG (e.g.  
RACK+)  would exclude registrars from owning registries.  Rather, it would 
prevent those registrars from having beneficial ownership beyond 15%.    As 
such I dont think registrars are excluded from becoming registries.  I just 
think they are excluded from having control.

Comments welcome.

RT