Re: [council] BRG FAQ Specification 13 - GNSO Council Discussion 10 Apr.

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 09-Apr-14 08:53, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Although it seems the .Brand registries model was not taken into
> consideration at the time, a briefing by the WG members may help us
> reach a decision on how to proceed with our response to the board.

As one of those around at the time the original policy recommendations
for this i do think that we talked about this sort of case.  While we
never spoke of .brand, to my recollection, we did speak of a variety of
closed TLD possibilities.  I know I often used the the example of a
family gTLD.  Which is just the brand of an earlier age.  But we did not
make any specific policy to deal with this sort of case.

We did not specifically treat the issue of registering for single use
names and did have the recommendation about all Registrars being offered
the same consideration for registration.  I never have seen this as a
barrier.  The rules never said what the provisions for Registrars had to be.

We also did not set a maximum to the number of names a Registry could
keep for itself, That was Staff policy made during the process of the
evolving DAG.  Without such a limit, I believe, the .Brand case would
not have been an issue as all the names would have been for the Registry
owner's own use.

avri



avri