RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
- From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:27 -0400
I wanted to point out that SRMU was not a part of the working notes
posted to the WG of this section. I pulled the link from the survey that
Mikey posted, and
https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?srsu, which is what
the WG was reading and thinking about. I believe what you have posted
is significantly different, so we were not really on notice (or able to
I would like to propose the materials below as the baseline for the SRSU
section in our Report, with additional comments perhaps attributed
directly to the groups from which they derive.
Note from Mikey -- I posted this extremely rough draft as a way to "fill
in a gap" for polling purposes. Clearly, this language will have to be
substantially refined during the next few weeks.
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
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 .ngo in case
where a specific membership organization could be identified. (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 (for example, internal
use by a large commercial or nonprofit corporation). 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.)
(Placeholder for more detail about NCSG model description.)
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846
Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 8:56 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; mike@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
1. Very little of this text is actually new. Most of it was
distributed to the WG 2 months ago or earlier this week.
2. There's no endorsement intended. It's indisputable that the IPC has
put forward the most detailed SRSU exception proposal, and the so-called
"implementation details" are essential elements of the .brand exception
it has proposed. We all know that putting the details in the appendix
means that most people outside the VI WG won't read them - although they
will certainly comment on it. (Some of the most vocal opponents of the
IRT recommendations at the Sydney meeting admitted - either directly or
indirectly by displaying complete ignorance of key points - by the Seoul
meeting that they hadn't actually read the report.) It's important to
avoid that situation again as it undermines the confidence in the
process by those who don't spend as much time in ICANNland as we all do.
It also undermines all of the work that all of us have done on the WG.
I intentionally relegated them to a footnote so that they were easily
accessible, but not given the prominence of "regular text" inclusion.
If the "implementation details" are deleted from this proposal, then
they should be deleted from all of the other proposals too. In that
case, look for my redline.
3. I have no objection to someone who opposes an SRSU exception
providing generally representative text (e.g, Critics of the SRSU
exception . . . .). Just don't expect me to write it. I'm too far
behind from being out of the office for 4 days.
4. Everyone on the WG who has put forward some iteration of SRSU has had
at least a week to send me text that they wanted included. I haven't
received a word. I also still haven't read the Initial Report (let's
not forget that it was circulated only a few days ago - when I was in
the middle of the Atlantic Ocean without Internet access). If there's
text re: SRSU in other proposals that can be copied over or
incorporated, I have no problem with that.
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:47 AM
To: 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx'; Rosette, Kristina
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
Mikey - how long do we have to comment on Kristina's text. I
believe the text is way too detailed for what this group should put out
in an initial report and purports to show endorsement of the IPC
implementation of not only SRSU, but also SRMU, which was hardly the
I will be providing me edits as quickly as I can, but we cannot
rush this. I find it amazing that new things were added to the report as
a whole in less than 24 hours before submission.
As previously stated, let's define SRSU as a concept in the body
of the report, but the specific implementation (like eligibility
requirements, etc.) needs to be pushed back to an appendix under the IPC
proposal. Just because 1 proponent of the SRSU had a requirement that
the SRSU could not be from a party whose primary business is that of a
registry, registrar, reseller, etc. Does NOT mean this was endorsed in
any way by the group.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
To: Rosette, Kristina <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri Jul 16 01:38:33 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU draft text
way to go Kristina. your timing is perfect. i was just looking
wistfully at that section of the report and hoping to find a new draft
when i opened email.
On Jul 16, 2010, at 12:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Here's revised SRSU draft text. In the interests of time, I am
sending this to the list even though Milton and Avri have not had a
chance to review it. It's subject to any changes they may have.
I've also included, for completeness, reference to the SRMU
exception that the IPC proposed.
One section I have not included is the level of support. Milton
and I both believe that there may be consensus support for the SRSU
exception among the non-contracted party house members of the WG. If we
could determine that on the list (as opposed to on the call), I can add
the relevant text.
<<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>>
<07162010 SR Initial Report text.DOC>
- - - - - - - - -
OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,