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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think there were that many. I was one that could not make the
subgroup meeting but did make the one earlier. I don't recall even 30 WG
members at that one and several could not make the subgroup meeting.
Were observers allowed to participate? If so, that should be mentioned
as well.

Regardless, I think Roberto is right that the fact that it took place,
and the output, should be included in the report. But also agree that
treating them the same as the proposals is overkill and may imply a
status within the WG that isn't accurate.

Tim
Sent from Go Daddy Mobile Mail using my iPad!

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: BRU1 Summary DIR-Final
> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, July 21, 2010 10:58 am
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
>    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@ic
>    ann.org] 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@ic
>    ann.org] 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@ican
>    n.org [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-fe
>    b10@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.)