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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I reiterate my comment of yesterday afternoon that BRU 1 and 2 were work
sessions only, where two groups agreed to a collection of ideas call BRU 1
and 2.  Nothing more.  More importantly, as Tom notes, the whole of the WG
did not consider all of the things spoken about in what was originally three
groups, if you recall.  So what we had were three small sub-groups in
several hour discussions that had no direction other than (sub-)'group mind'
driving them; where, in some places, a number of people coalesced around
certain ideas.  This does not merit inclusion in the Report other than as an
addendum only.  

 

As we plow through this to meet our deadlines let's not lose sight of the
facts.  Long-discussed and polled issues in; short discussions out or in an
annex only with a clear statement that they were "the result of."  In this
case, the result of our Brussels face-to-face meeting.  We cannot consider
the results of a limited number of members' 4-hour discussion as a real
proposal as it in no way meets that standard of the length of consideration
of the other proposals by all members of the WG.

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:59 AM
To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; 'Mike O'Connor'
Cc: 'Neuman, Jeff'; 'Richard Tindal'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final

 

 

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 <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.)