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

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

this *is* an epic day.  pretty-good release draft out on the wiki AND a 
disagreement between the co-chairs!  woohoo!

however, Mr. Flip-Flopper is going to take the wind out of Roberto's sails on 
that disagreement thingy.

i agree that the BRU1 and BRU2 work is a significant working-paper of the 
group.  not the same as the proposals, but significant.  last night i was too 
sick to do much except stumble along with the editing stuff, but i did leave 
them in an Annex.

my hope would be that we can agree to an introduction to them in the body of 
the report that covers the following points

-- they were arrived at through a different process than proposals
-- a description of the process (subgroups selected to force people with 
diverging opinions together, two-tasks (identify/rank atoms, assemble new 
molecules), etc.)
-- a note that this was a subset of the group, the process excluded members who 
did not attend Brussels, it also excluded members who had conflicting meetings 
in Brussels, etc

how does that sound?  if that works for people, i have Richard's DIR summary 
for BRU1 and i need one from the BRU2 gang

mikey

On Jul 21, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:

>  
> if included, it should mention the level of participation that was involved 
> compared to the rest of the document.  Any idea how many members of the group 
> attended the meeting?
> I know a lot of us were unable to attend.
>  
> tom
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 1:30 AM
> To: 'Mike O'Connor'
> Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Richard Tindal'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final
> 
> I think I agree with Jon. Please note for the record that this is the first, 
> and hopefully last, disagreement with my fellow co-chair.
> We spent a great deal of time in Brussels, and BRU1/2 is the result. As 
> unsatisfactory as it might be, it is nevertheless something that has 
> happened, and that should be reported.
> If people think that it should not have the same status as the original 
> proposals, fair enough, we should put a sort of header or disclaimer 
> describing this fact, but I don't think we should delete the outcome of two 
> days of F2F meetings in Brussels.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 July 2010 04:49
> To: Mike O'Connor
> Cc: Neuman, Jeff; Richard Tindal; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final
> 
> never mind -- too many drafts running around...
> 
> you guys are right, this is a summary.  i don't know what the status of 
> BRU1/2 are in the document.
> 
> i'll leave them out for now... i think that's the conclusion that was reached 
> on the call where we discussed it.
> 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:39 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.)
>> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone  651-647-6109  
> fax   
>   866-280-2356  
> web  http://www.haven2.com
> handle 
>   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 

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