<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Two questions relating to two examples offered in support of some "SR" claim
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Two questions relating to two examples offered in support of some "SR" claim
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:46:59 -0700
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|