RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's been a lot of discussion about the compliance piece, so I guess
if we get more detailed about that, it's fine. But here is what I would
prefer to see in the report regarding Exceptions, SRSU, and compliance:

"It is impossible to know or completely understand all potential
business models that may be represented by new gTLD applicants. That
fact has been an obstacle to finding consensus on policy that defines
clear, bright line rules for allowing vertical integration and a
compliance framework to support it while ensuring that such policy is
practical and beneficial in the public interest. However, there is
general acceptance within the Working Group for the following:

1. Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round will be
unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or control
between registrar and registry. 

2. The need for a process that would allow applicants to request
exceptions and be considered on a case by case basis. The reasons for
exceptions and the conditions under which exceptions would be allowed,
varied widely in the group.

3. The concept of Single Registrant Single User should be explored
further.

4. The need for enhanced compliance efforts and the need for a detailed
compliance plan in relation to the new gTLD program in general."

All of the details on above are so new that I don't see how consensus
can truly be determined, especially when some of it is still be created
and edited. Otherwise, I have no doubt that when the report is finally
posted there will be edits or other material included that some of us
will not have had the chance to even see. If we go with the above we can
close those three things off pretty quickly.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 5:14 pm
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


Kristina,

Comments on the SRSU text. The form is call and response.

Eric

Page 1, Para 1, sentence 3:
"Within the VI Working Group, there was a general endorsement of the 
idea of an SRSU exception."

I suggest qualifying this by observing that advocates for policy 
choices other than broad continuity included an SRSU exception, 
explicit in proposals which otherwise contained conditional 
cross-ownership language, and implicit in proposals which removed 
cross-ownership restriction, and that in the Brussels meeting period, 
when compromises were attempted, a limited exception to Recommendation 
19 was offered by the advocates for broad policy continuity.

I know it is a lot more words and takes away from the punch of the 
claim, but it could be more useful to show which policy advocates 
found common cause with the committed SRSU policy advocates.

Para 2, sentence 2:
"... that satisfied additional criteria intended to limit the 
applicability of the exceptions and to discourage abuse and gaming of 
the exceptions."

This is advocacy. Please consider cutting it.

Para 2, Types of SRSU exceptions, sentence 3:
"Several WG participants who are members of the Non-Commercial 
Stakeholders Group proposed an SRSU exception for non-governmental 
organization registries (NGOs) (referred to as .ngo registry) ..."

I have no issue with calling attention to the SG affiliation of any 
advocate, but implicit in this is something false. The previous 
sentence has the IPC as a body making a proposal based upon real 
self-interest. This sentence elevates the association of these WG 
participants who are members of the NC SG as advocates for NGOs as 
recipients of a broad cross-ownership and/or Recommendation 19 
exception, and implicitly their interests, to the same level as the 
IPC and its membership of brand owners.

This association is false unless there are one or more NGOs which 
authorized these NC SG members to act on their behalf, as brand owners 
have authorized their IPC SG members, to pursue indistinguishable ends.

Has any NGO asked for an exception? The Red Cross contacted CORE and 
it did not, to the best of my knowledge, ask for a SRSU exception. It 
asked for a fraud solution and brand protection application, which is 
not a registration policy so narrow as to admit only one registrant.

We are not talking about the interests of imaginary brands. We are not 
allowing random people to claim "they speak for XYZ Corp and its 
portfolio of brands". We should not entertain claims so conjectural as 
a claim that some VI WG volunteer may appropriate the good name of 
some public interest entity to advance claims that lack any other basis.

The requirement that a policy advocate represents an actual applicant 
is something that can't be satisfied now, it has to have been 
demonstrable when the policy was first advocated.

Para 2, Types of SRSU exceptions, sentence 4.

Please consider cutting this. If you and I, who've both been watching 
this issue like hawks, can't think of the reason, it isn't enough to 
add to the word count.

Page 2, para 1, sentence 1:

This is advocacy. Please consider cutting it.

Para 1, sentence 2:

This is advocacy. Please consider cutting it.

Para 1, sentence 3:

This is policy. Please don't cut it.

End.