[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: SRSU

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Kristina.  I still do not understand the notion of "those entities whose 
primary line of business or activity (commercial or not) is not the selling of 
second-level domains and whose participation would be impaired if the VI and CO 
prohibitions applied."  Kristina, can you please provide the background on that 
notion as it only came from the IPC.  I am not sure what the harm would be for 
an Afilias, VeriSign, ENOM or even Mark Monitor would be if they would get 
their own SRSU TLD and abide by the rules set.  

Kristina - Unless a good rationale can be provided, I would not want to see 
that in the draft.  And again, this is not a comment to benefit Neustar as our 
primary business is not the selling of domain names, so I am really asking for 
others in the group.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:38 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU


All,

Apologies for the delay and incompleteness; it's been quite a trip.  The text 
below is suggested as a start -- it's definitely not complete.

K

-*-

The WG discussed several specific exceptions to prohibitions on vertical 
integration and cross-ownership.  One such exception is for single-registrant, 
single-user (SRSU) registries.   Under the SRSU exception, there is only one 
registrant of second-level names - the registry itself - and only one user of 
the second-level names  - also the registry itself.

As discussed further below, several types of SRSUs were proposed by 
constituencies and WG members.  The Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) 
proposed an SRSU exception for .brand registries, which is summarized at [page 
number].[fn:  See  pages ____-____ infra for the entire proposal.] Several WG 
participants who are members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group proposed 
an exception for [left for Milton, Avri or others to complete b/c didn't want 
to inadvertently mischaracterize or omit any key details] 

The principle rationale for the SRSU exception is to facilitate the 
participation in the introduction of new gTLDs by those entities whose primary 
line of business or activity (commercial or not) is not the selling of 
second-level domains and whose participation would be impaired if the VI and CO 
prohibitions applied .  The SRSU structure, along with the type-specific 
restrictions, is expected to preclude the harms attributed to VI and CO.

[Placeholder for more detail about IPC .brand model description.  Scott Austin 
or Fred Felman, can you complete?]

[Placeholder for more detail about NCSG model description.]

Critics of/Those WG members of the SRSU exception contend . . .