Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU Exception Text - Revised - DIR?

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/21/10 9:40 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
> I do as well, but I am unsure if we all agree on the intent of the
> direction:
>
> As I see it, there is the following main subdefinitions of exceptions:
>
> a) SRSU as an exception to equal registrar access
> b) SRSU as an exception to registrar-registry co-ownership
> c) SRSU as an exception to registrar ability to act as RSP.

I've pointed this out in the off-list (RACK+ and JN2) and SR* related 
communication last week and the previous, that a capped exception, in 
volume or time, need not be through a distinct legal entity in which 
there is an ownership interest.

> The acceptance of the different forms of exception depends largeliy on
> the basic outlook on VI/CO favored by the WG-member. It also depends
> largely on the definition of SRSU, and what forms of domain names will
> be allowable under said exception. For example, I favor a very narrow
> definition of SRSU, allowing no form of distribution of individual
> domain names, while others consider distribution amongst "members"
> affiliates, or franchisees as acceptable.

Agree. Those looking for a general CO vehicle to pursue their business 
interest may not wish to cast the Exception as an exception to 
Recommendation 19.
In my opinion, both the SRSU mess and the Exception mess suffer from 
the intentional weaknesses of their respective definitions, and the 
willingness of parties actually seeking different ends to agree to 
using terms that are simply multiply defined without distinction.
It makes for "support" but what exactly is supported?

Eric