<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
- To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
- From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 09:58:26 -0400
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcdslBe9EB2/eVEiR+KlEPuWUW4zVwATpabAABeavsAAA8WNYAAAyPsd
- Thread-topic: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
Right. Changing that provision would be the accommodation that I am suggesting in this limited case. It is better, in my eyes, than the 5,000 name provision. Thanks. Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 09:48 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] FW: MUSEUM proposal
Hello All,
>>> I too suggested that the .museum sponsor simply become
accredited as a registrar.
Note there are actually two provisions in some of the registry
agreements.
E.g from .biz:
7.1 (b) Registry Operator Shall Not Act as Own Registrar. Registry
Operator shall not act as a registrar with respect to the TLD. This
shall not preclude Registry Operator from registering names within the
TLD to itself through a request made to an ICANN-accredited registrar.
7.1 (c) Restrictions on Acquisition of Ownership or Controlling
Interest in Registrar. Registry Operator shall not acquire, directly or
indirectly, control of, or a greater than fifteen percent ownership
interest in, any ICANN-accredited registrar.
The second provision above may put a limitation on a sponsor becoming
accredited as a registrar.
Regards,
Bruce
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|