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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

i gave Kristina a more detailed version about 4 hours ago.

in the note you sent 1 1/4 hours ago you asked for summaries for BRU1,  BRU2 
and JN2

if you're going to ditch it do it quietly and dont tell me

R


On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 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.)
>