RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text - critics corner

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

I agree fully with Ron that the SRSU piece should be significantly streamlined. 

 

However, in the event that the text remains, then I will accept Kristina's 
invitation at the end of the SRSU piece, namely: "Critics of the concept of an 
SRSU exception contend that [text?]...."

 

ð  Critics of the concept of an SRSU exception note that the SRSU exception has 
no consistency of interpretation and creates a danger of undermining the main 
registry-registrar structures being proposed by many in the VI WG. In 
particular, critics are concerned that SRSU domain names (second level) might 
be handed out to third parties for wide-spread public use: bypassing Equivalent 
Access, bypassing ICANN-Accredited Registrars and bypassing the main purpose 
and reason for the Registry-Registrar separation to which DAG4, RACK and JN2 
proposals are dedicated. Given that well-known names (both for-profit and 
not-for-profit) are likely to be given only to their trademark owners, and 
given that the strong need to develop details and compliance/enforcement models 
-- should SRSUs distribute beyond their limits - those concerned in the WG felt 
that SRSU should not be part of the first round of new gTLDs, but work for 
definition, consensus and introduction in a latter round. 

 

Best,

 

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

 

Visit us online!

Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg 
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:27 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] New Revised SRSU Text

 

All, 

I've attached a clean copy of further revised SRSU text that I think (and hope) 
addresses the concerns raised and reflects input by several WG members that had 
been deleted in the current IR text.  [Richard, I summarized your BRU1 text b/c 
everyone else had 1 sentence and BRU1 was two paragraphs.]  I *do not* copy it 
below because doing so drops the footnotes.

I have also attached two comparisons.  One is a comparison of the "new" clean 
text against the text that's currently in the Initial Report (the "current IR 
SRSU redline"). The other comparison is of the new "clean" text against what 
was submitted on Wednesday afternoon ("07212010 IR SRSU redline").

Please let me know if you have questions.  

K 

 

<<07212010 IR SRSU redline.DOC>> <<Current IR SRSU redline.DOC>> <<KR changes 
to IR SRSU text.DOC>>