Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

My bullets are just about the DAG4.  I don't think there is enough detail in 
the Nairobi resolution to create a summary of it.   

Also, I don't know the ownership details of existing registries so I dont know 
how they might be affected.

RT



On Jul 19, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> A salient detail is the difference between the Nairobi policy and the DAGv4 
> proposed policy relative to the existing registry contracted parties.
> 
> The WG understood the Nairobi policy excluded all current registries due to 
> nominal and substantive ownership interests by current registrars.
> 
> That is present in the draft Nairobi summary I sent earlier.
> 
> The WG understood the DAGv4 proposed policy excluded only those current 
> registries for which a 2% ownership interest is held by current registrars. 
> Because of market capitalization, the WG understood that at least one, and 
> perhaps three, of the current registries could, under the DAGv4 proposed 
> policy, apply for additional registry contracts and offer registry services 
> to third-party applicants for registry contracts.
> 
> Absent this, the public comment readership may not appreciate there is a 
> competition policy issue present in the DAGv4 proposed policy, as it 
> qualifies some registriess and disqualifies other registries, for a cause not 
> self-contained in the DAGv4 text, and at odds with the Nairobi text.
> 
> Eric
> 
>