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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Tim,
Your 4-point summary is pretty good, except for #3. 

The report should note that SRSU has substantial support; in particular, we 
should point out that representatives from both user Stakeholder Groups are 
solidly behind it; and that the main opposition to SRSU comes from incumbent 
registries and registrars who are concerned about its competitive implications. 
Even so, some prospective registries also support the notion. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:57 PM
> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Revised SRSU text
> 
> 
> 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.
>