<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Two questions relating to two examples offered in support of some "SR" claim
- To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [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 20:51:13 -0400
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|