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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks.  The piece on 'do not control the policies, pricing and registrar 
selection' was discussed and was the intent of the group.  Thanks for picking 
up on that omission.

In the first paragraph I'm trying to say no more than 15% cross ownership 
between any of the following three groups:

1.   registries/ RSPs

2.  registrars/resellers

3.  affiliates of 1. or 2.

Is that what the amended para now says, or can it be read as saying no more 
than 15% between registries and RSPs (for example)

RT


On Jul 20, 2010, at 4:40 AM, Jon Nevett wrote:

> 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) the 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.  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>