ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] Two questions relating to two examples offered in support of some "SR" claim

  • To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Two questions relating to two examples offered in support of some "SR" claim
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 06:55:30 -0400


To Richard Tindale and Kritina Rosette, initially.

Richard,

The two corporate entities which I know are interested in applying in the current round are Canon and UNICEF. Both have made their intent public.

The former has 19 sub-domains, the later 42.

Assuming that the current corporate use of their name space will be reflected in their application, the requirements of both for any form of registrar function could easily be met by either the reserved list mechanism or by any registrar either corporation selects by any means.

Is it your impression, having given the reserved list mechanism some thought, and the degree of impediment that use of a registrar actually amounts to, that either of these known instances necessarily require an "Exemption", either to Recommendation 19, or to any ownership or control restriction on registry-registrar combines, under any of the proposals contained in the Initial Report?

Kristina,

Where these two eventual applicants differ is in the claim each makes to prevail in any string contention, or to standing to object to any application by third parties. The first string is trademarked, the second is not.

Independent of the necessity for exemption question, is it your impression, having given the string contention mechanism some thought, is "brand" the most general application of the string contention and objection standing policies already adopted by Consensus Policy and present in the Draft Applicant Guidebook to the problem of forming an admission criteria for an application to obtain an exemption?

Thank you each for your thoughts.

In my personal opinion, neither seems a useful example of a entity which intends to allow a plurality of agency within the eventual name space, and so are unlike "membership" online organizations sometime mentioned without further specifics on this list, and also unlike the single brand with multiple affiliated franchisees or multiple brands with multiple affiliated franchisees discussed in the IP Constituency Statement.

Eric



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy