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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

There were approximately 10 members in the BRU1 group.    I think BRU2 had 
about the same number.

The third group,  which did not reach the same level of agreement,  had about 
9, as I recall

RT


On Jul 21, 2010, at 5:59 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.)
>