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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

correct,  thanks.

let me reword and send a new version

RT


On Jul 20, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> 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 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.  
>>>> 
>>>>