Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] BRU1 - 200ish word summary

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Afficher en écriture latine
 This version is acceptable but must be well clarified in the specification

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                           +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/7/20 Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>

> RICHARD:  SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES IN CAPS BELOW.  THANKS.  JON
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:34 AM, Richard Tindal wrote:
>
>
> All,
>
> Here's a draft summary of BRU1 for comment.
>
> RT
>
>
> =======================================================================================================================================================
> *
> *
> *BRU 1*
> *
> *
> *The BRU1 sub-group recommends a 15% cross ownership limit between
> REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS, AS WELL AS:  (i) REGISTRARS/ registry service
> providers (RSPs);  (ii)  registrars/ resellers;  and (iii) their Affiliates.
>  This limit applies regardless of the TLD(s) offered by the parties.
>   Irrespective of ownership levels, control (as defined by DAG4) may never
> occur.  For example,  a registrar may never control a registry,  even if it
> has only 10% ownership of that registry.*
> *
> *
> *Although there is not consensus within the sub-group on this,  a majority
> of participants are sympathetic to an exception for RSPs who DO NOT CONTROL
> THE POLICIES, PRICING AND REGISTRAR SELECTION OF A REGISTRY AND THEY
> undertake a form of accreditation directly with ICANN.  Participating RSPs
> would agree to a set of significant sanctions should they be found in breach
> of their obligations (for such things as the confidentiality of registry
> data).  The sub-group views this exception as worthy of further
> consideration.*
> *
> *
> *BRU1 defines an SRSU TLD as one where: (a) t**he registry is the
> registrant for all second level names; and (b) the use of names in terms of
> website content,  email control,  or any other application associated with
> the domains is exercised only by the registry.   BRU1 believes the registry
> contract (Section 2.6 'Reserved Names') should be amended to specifically
> allow for the SRSU model.  If Section 2.6 cannot be amended BRU1 supports an
> exception that allows an SRSU registry to own a registrar in its TLD, and a
> waiver of equivalent access obligations on that registry.  *
> *
> *
>
> *
> *
>
>
>