RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I thought there was push back in including a summary in Section 6 as it was not 
a real proposal.  It is why we have not drafted a summary of BRU-1 for Section 
6.  Or am I way off base in my memory.....

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy

________________________________
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final

Mikey,

There's been no push back on this so I'm going to label it a DIR-Final

RT




On Jul 20, 2010, at 2:26 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:



Incorporates comments from Jon, Alan and Jeff.

Let me know if it works

RT

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BRU 1

The BRU1 sub-group recommends a 15% cross ownership limit between the following 
two groups:  (1) registries, registry service providers (RSPs) and their 
affiliates; and (2) registrars, resellers and 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 15% 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.  In order to qualify 
for such an exception an RSP would be required to undertake a form of 
accreditation directly with ICANN,  and 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.