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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/26/10 8:46 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 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.
So for these two specific examples, necessity and utility of exception 
are less than compelling.
We've discussed this off-list, thanks for your patience in making the 
same observation on-list.
Eric

> 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