ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours

  • To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] refined version of Roberto's bullet-points -- pls review/comment within 24 hours
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:36:05 -0400

On 10/25/10 2:33 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

•        Compliance is key (the working group spent a considerable amount of 
time discussing the issue).  Whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, we need 
adequate leadership, processes and resources in place to enforce them;

Please note that we do not have consensus on this point.

We have approached the issue of how to prevent abuse, as argued to exist, either by Staff (Kurt's note to CRAI, Kurt via voca on several occasions, Corporate General and Deputy Counsel on one occasion, External Counsel (Joe Sims) on one occasion), or by the Board, or by end user advocates, competing contractual parties, and non-contractual parties) from the perspective that any registrar and any (within some broad "types") registry and compliance over the transactions between the "any registrar" and the "some registry".

We have not approached the issue of whether abuse equally exists across all registrars, Brett's point, and mine, and possibly that of other registrars, that what I'll call "prudent registrars" have a record that calls for less "compliance" than what I'll call "imprudent registrars".

We've been arguing for "types" of registries: standard, community-based, SRSU(s), linguistic and cultural, orphan, ...

We've been arguing for a typeless registrars, so eNom's Nth shell registrar is the same as GoDaddy is the same as ...

Transactional compliance is a big burden, and failing to distinguish between registrar risk and business models may not be the lowest overall cost and complexity path to careful integration of registrar function and registry functions.

So I'd like to see "adequate leadership, processes and resources" changed to "reasonable goals, adequate staffing, risk informed processes and resources"

•        There is no consensus on either full vertical integration or full 
vertical separation;

See Jon+Keith.

•        We have compiled a list of potential harms that may be associated with 
either complete separation or complete integration. We have not finalized the list, we 
have not focused on potential harms associated with partial integration or separation, 
and we do not have consensus on the list we do have.
•        While the WG has not identified exact examples (although some cases 
like cultural TLDs or brand TLDs have been discussed), there is a general feeling that 
some exceptions could be granted.

The advocates for brands really need to start the process to get their application type clearly defined and proposed through process so that community comment is available.


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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy