RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)--single registrant TLDs

[<jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Folks,

I haven't been overly active in the BC list but I've surely been an active 
follower. I am also a member of the Vertical Integration Working Group.

To me, as a representative of a large corporation in BC, it seems rather odd 
that BC would not support Single Registrant TLDs.
As a matter of fact the Single Registrant TLDs or brand TLDs are pretty much 
the only thing the VIWG actually is in agreement. It is generally seen that 
Single Registrant TLDs can work if the boundaries are correctly defined.

It would be pretty strange if the one constituency that is supposed to drive 
the interests of businesses would oppose Single Registrant TLDs.

The need is there and the case is pretty simple. Here's a message I posted 
earlier to the VIWG mailing list:

<I think most of us recognize that brand TLDs should not have to use 
registrars. It just doesn't make any sense for brand TLDs to buy their own 
internal names from some 3rd party.
As Milton stated the problem is how to define this kind of TLD in way that 
prohibits gaming and unfair competition.

The way I see it, the solution is simple. I think brand TLDs should not be 
allowed to sell any names outside their internal usage. Names could probably be 
allowed to be given to business partners though. The brand TLD should also be 
non-transferrable or at least that would require special permission from ICANN. 
If the brand owner goes bankrupt TLD would be taken down in a controlled way 
and not transferred to anyone else.

In my opinion this approach would satisfy the needs of brand TLDs without 
promoting gaming or unfair competitive advantage.>

Just bringing a potential TLD applicant's view on the table,

BR,

JARKKO RUUSKA
Head of Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration,  Tampere, Finland
Nokia Corporation
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx


From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext 
Ron Andruff
Sent: 17. toukokuuta 2010 18:17
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration 
(VI)--single registrant TLDs


Dear members,



Steve wrote:



<I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member) who's planning to apply 
for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to operate their own TLD if 
arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed registrations.



I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for potential needs of single 
registrant TLDs like those described in these examples.



Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to conform with 
ICANN's contract and consensus policies.  It's also acceptable to require the 
use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can be 
wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company.    But let's 
argue against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant 
TLDs to use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached.>



While Steve's arguments may have merit, as we saw in Jon's and Berry's 
responses, there are so many different ways to look at every permutation of 
single-registrant TLDs it is clear the entire subject needs considerably more 
time to study than the VI WG has vis-à-vis trying to complete its mandate prior 
to the start of the application process.  For this reason, I noted what follows 
below in one of my posts to the VI WG list last week.  I share it here with the 
members of the BC, because I believe that many members may feel the same way 
about this exercise.



Ron wrote:


<What I see shaping up is a divergence of thinking that goes in two distinct 
directions, i.e., those that are more supportive of VI and those that are more 
supportive of adhering to the status quo (maintaining the tried and tested 
structure that has been in place for the past decade).

In my view, we need to be realistic about what we will/will not achieve as a 
result of this WG and consider promoting the concept of finalizing an Applicant 
Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing that no matter how hard the 
community continues to try to refine it, it will most certainly need some kind 
of re-tooling after the 'first round' or batch of applicants test the systems, 
as it were.  This WG should take the necessary time to do our work thoroughly 
without predetermined timelines forcing the VI WG to compromise on a solution 
that will not be able to stand the test of time going forward.

I don't believe that a delay in integrating our work product into the AG v2 (or 
not, should the outcome of our efforts be a recommendation to maintain the 
status quo) will harm those applicants that we are working hard to find 
solutions for, neither their intended users.  'Difficult' new TLD applicants 
(e.g., brands, small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be put 
in a separate queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud those 
applications (such as VI) have been clarified.  All others that are 
straightforward should be allowed to get into the queue for immediate 
processing to allow ICANN to initiate the application process in 2010.

Holding everything up until the ICANN community believes we have addressed 
every issue is a fool's errand.  Be sure, no matter how hard we try to address 
every aspect of this, there will be issues and implications that arise only 
after the first batch of new gTLD applications have been processed.  What is at 
stake is not only the loss of credibility of applicants in the eyes of their 
'communities', investors and the like, as has been often cited at open mikes 
and other for a, but also of ICANN's credibility as an institution.  For 3+ 
years ICANN (that is, all of us as part of the community of ICANN) has been 
trying to bring new TLDs to market.   Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years 
while we try to 'get everything just right' serves no one.

Therefore, let's be sure that the VI WG does its work in an appropriate way in 
an appropriate time frame and NOT link anything we are doing to the initiation 
of new TLD applications.>



Your comments on this direction are most welcome.  I would be happy to take 
them back to the VI WG list, as appropriate.



Kind regards,



RA



Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11







-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration 
(VI)--single registrant TLDs







Philip,



Thank you for your response.  I support your statement that we as BC

members must advocate for commercial users.  Just to be clear, the

intent of my example is not in support of a Registry, but more about

the market in general.  I want to see each approved TLD succeed in the

market, because that is ultimately the best for consumers.  The last

thing I want to support are policies that create unfair market

conditions whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing TLDs will

create uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers and business

users of that TLD.



Further, I will state that I have not finalized my opinions WRT to the

concept of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many other

characteristics to consider in the whole.  Single Registrant Single

User(SRSU) vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has been

discussed a fair amount by not exhaustively.



I appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum going!  Thank you.





Berry Cobb

Infinity Portals LLC

berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.infinityportals.com

866.921.8891



-----Original Message-----

From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On

Behalf Of Philip Sheppard

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM

To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration

(VI)-- single registrant TLDs







I too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with the other cases.



My default in such cases is that unless one can be watertight in the

definition,

then erring on the side of caution is probably better.

However, as BC members we need to think what is the best model for commercial

users, not what is best for one registry or other.

So I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social registry !!



Philip