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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I may have missed something but why is #2 in the proposal. Has nothing to do 
with Registry/Registrar ownership

Thanks

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue Jul 20 08:00:24 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] BRU1 - 200ish word summary

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.






________________________________
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.