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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

i think this is language that's going into Kristina's SRSU Principle draft, 
rather than as a summary in Section 6.  that's where it is right now anyway...

mikey


On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:30 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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.  
>  
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)