<<<
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
>>>
|