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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
Eric