RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: DAG4 Summary for report

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I still have an issue with Bullet point 3, as I believe this is an 
interpretation of the DAG and is not a fact. I also believe that this is a 
conceptual idea and makes it seem that the door is really open for ICANN 
Registrars, but is not based in reality. The DAG states no ICANN accredited 
Registrars.
I would also ask for examples where this exists in business, either for profit 
or non-profit. Is there any occasion where someone can own 100% of a company, 
but can never vote, control or dispose of the shares. That you are stuck with 
the investment in this entity forever. This makes no sense to me and do not 
believe this was the intent of ICANN when they used the terms beneficial 
ownership and the 2% level.
Until ICANN staff or ICANN Board comes out and agrees to this belief , I ask 
that this not be included in this report or any statement of fact surrounding 
DAGv4.




From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: DAG4 Summary for report

Jeff N,

Per todays call, let's drill down on whether we think the 10 bullets below are 
accurate statements of what's in the DAG4.

As Mikey said,  let's agree on the ones we agree,  and identify those where we 
interpret the DAG differently.  Those latter ones are presumably the ambiguous 
issues.    I can only find one potentially ambiguous issue - and that's in 
point 6. below.   It's not clear to me whether the DAG prohibition on 
registrars providing back-end Registry Services applies to a registrar who 
provides just one component of those Services (e.g.  Escrow only).     I note 
this issue was raised with Kurt several times in Brussels and he undertook to 
clarify.

Can we also agree that we're not going to comment on what the DAG4 'should say' 
or 'meant to say'.    Let's just focus on summarizing the specific words in the 
DAG.

Make sense?

Richard



Begin forwarded message:


From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx<mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx>>
Date: July 18, 2010 11:08:10 PM PDT
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4


I agree with Milton about the DAG4 language.  It's complex to read, but it's 
also precise and unambiguous.    As Milton says, the underlying concept is 
simple.   It's about control.

The key to understanding it is the definitions of 'Control' and 'Beneficial 
Ownership'.  These terms are carefully defined in Section 2.9 (c) of the draft 
Registry contract -- which should be read first.    Control is the power to 
cause the direction of management or policies.  Beneficial Ownership of shares 
means the ability of those shares to vote,  or the power to direct the sale of 
those shares.

Here's a summary of some important, DAG4 rules:

1.   A registrar entity or their Affiliate (another company with whom the 
registrar has common Control) may not directly hold a registry contract.  This 
applies regardless of the TLD(s) in which the  registrar is accredited.

2.   A registrar entity or their Affiliate may Beneficially Own up to 2% of 
shares in another company that can hold a registry contract

3.   A registrar entity or their Affiliate may own 100% of the shares in 
another company that can hold a registry contract.  However,  the registrar 
entity or Affiliate must not have the power to decide disposal of those shares, 
and the shares must not have voting rights  (i.e.   the shares must not be 
Beneficially Owned).

4.   In no circumstance may a registry entity Control a registrar or its 
Affiliates, or vice versa.

5.   Affiliates of the registry entity may not distribute names in any TLD -- 
as either a registrar, reseller or other form of domain distributor

6.   No registrar, reseller or other form of domain distributer (or their 
Affiliates) may provide Registry Services to a registry entity.  Registry 
Services are defined in Spec 6 to the contract.

7.   Names can only be registered through registrars

8.   Registries can set accreditation criteria for registrars that are 
reasonably related to the purpose of the TLD  (e.g.   a Polish language TLD 
could require registrars to offer the domain via a Polish language interface).

9.   Participating registrars must be treated on a non-discriminatory basis

10. Registries can register names to themselves

I offer these bullets only as a data point for the group.  I'm happy for 
someone else to draft the actual text for inclusion in the Report.

Regardless of who prepares this I think it's extremely important that report 
readers have a summary of DAG4.    I feel there is a significant level of 
misunderstanding in the community about the DAG4 rules.   As it's the  baseline 
position on this issue, including the basis for proposed exemptions,  I think 
our report will be much less useful if we fail to factually summarize the DAG.

RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 7:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:



Jeff,
I don't agree. DAGv4 is pretty simple in concept, it's an attempt to translate 
the Nairobi resolution into practice. I don't have any objection to Richard 
summarizing it.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:59 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
Principles-summaries


I have been thinking about this and believe that a summary written by a
WG member is not appropriate. (No offense to Tindal on this)

The other proposals such RACK, JN2, Free trade were authored by members
of this group and asking the authors and collaborators of those
proposals to summarize their work makes sense.  They understand the
ideas, details and logic of their proposal and can express those in a
summary.

The DAGv4 was written by Staff and to have a 3rd party summarize their
work could be lead to interpretations and conclusions that the authors
did not intend. If we want to include DAGv4 we should include the exact
text in DAGv4, no editing of it, not just a few bullet points , but the
whole section related to CO/VI. Alternatively we could just have it in
the Annex


Jeff Eckhaus


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 4:46 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: "Rules" for proposal-summaries and
Principles-summaries


I may be suffering from some of Mikey's sleep deprivation, and losing
the plot on this,  but this is what I'm asking  ---  Given that the
Nairobi resolution has already been turned into detailed DAG4 language
(which we will summarize) what is the point of us trying to reinterpret
the resolution?

R



On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:36 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

wow. i feel like i wrote a vanishing note.

Only our common (mis)interpretation of the resolution can explain our
acts in consequence.

Can you think of a currently contracted party not eliminated from re-
obtaining contracted party status, as a registry, by the Nairobi
resolution?

Do you think that is the self-evident reading of the Nairobi
resolution?

I don't.

Only we can explain our reading of the text, and therefore our
subsequent acts.

Eric

On 7/16/10 7:23 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:

Understand and agree

Given all you say about Nairobi though - how could you (or anyone
except a board member) turn it into other words?

I don't think any of us are able to turn Nairobi into a summary -
hence I think we just include the 70 word resolution itself.

RT


On Jul 16, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

Richard,

What the resolution states is not what the working group understood
it to state, hence our original (and unanswered) questions to ... a
void.

Further, the Board resolution is not couched in language intended to
inform, and elicit, informed public comment.

The Board resolution language does not make plain that all 2001 and
all 2004 registries have liabilities, either actual ownership interests
by registrars, or use a registrar's technical facilities for the
registry's service provider.

The uninformed reader of the Board resolution has no way to grasp
from that one sentence that no registry contract will be concluded with
any existing contracted party.

Since we know this, we should make it known to the reader, else the
public comment we get will be unable to interpret those few words as we
do, and therefore be unable to correctly associate our work with the
Board's resolution.

Thanks for volunteering to do the 200 kind words on the sublime
beauty of DAGv4, I suppose I'm a likely candidate for 200 kind words on
the 2% less sublime beauty of Nairobi.

Eric






Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by
Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your
system. Thank you.




________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.