ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg]


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

[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Thinking about the TDG-Legal meeting and JAS goals

  • To: "soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Thinking about the TDG-Legal meeting and JAS goals
  • From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:39:09 -0500


Colleagues,

In Thursday's TDG-Legal meeting I will ask Staff to provide the rational(s) for:

1. cash obligation for operational funding of needs-qualified applicants, in lieu of any other means to guarantee the acceptable level of performance of the specific functions.

If needs-qualified applicants can form "insurance pools", as we've discussed earlier, or can obtain guarantees of "continuity" service from ccTLD registry operators, or can subscribe to some "continuity" service provider, and historically there have been and continue to be pro-bono providers of technical and operational support for registry operators in developing economies, then the cost to the needs-qualified applicants is changed in form from pre-application-time irrevocable grants of resources to ICANN, and reduced in total cost.


2. continuity obligations for needs-qualified applicants who's proposed registration policies are not structured to induce foreign trademark registration.

If the interests of the registrant to be protected are registrants in the developing economies, then the locality of continuity service is a concern. If the interests of the registrant to be protected are those of trademark holders in developed economies, then the locality of continuity service is probably not a concern.

We need to know if the goal of "continuity" is protecting "GA registrants" or protecting "Sunrise registrants".


3. complete, pre-application funding of the continuity function, rather than pay-as-you-grow (and the dependency of registrants increases) structure of the instrument.

Ab initio, a new registry has no registrants. The fully-loaded up-front form of funding the continuity instrument means the 1st registrant has no more risk of loss than the 10,000th registrant. Making the new gTLD program "risk free" for registrants is out of scope, particularly when the subsidized property is paid for by needs-qualified applicants.

Eric



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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy