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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

if they were going to register a low number of domains I think they'd try to 
use the reserved names list mechanism,  or just register the names to 
themselves through a selected registrar (e.g. Tucows).  Both of those 
approaches would be much cheaper options than becoming accredited themselves 

if the number of names was large and/ or dynamic they might prefer to have the 
exemptions.

Richard


On Jul 26, 2010, at 3:55 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> 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