Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] BRU1 - 200ish word summary
I *think* you are trying to say that more control ownership is ok between a (registry and an RSP) or between a (registrar and a reseller), but not between, for instance, a (registrar and an RSP). Is that correct? If so, I think it says that if you add "other" before affiliates. Without it, an RSP which is an affiliate of a registry would be prohibited by the 1:3 relationship although allowed under 1:1. Alan At 20/07/2010 11:00 AM, Richard Tindal wrote: 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 1The 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.
|