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

[<jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I would be hesitant to use Nokia as an example as there are many other 
potential .brand applicants around anyway. But what I can do is to try to 
describe .brand case as I see it (with the risk of repeating my previous mails 
to BC and VIWG lists). I agree with Ron that some cases that have been on the 
table are more problematic than others. That is why I want to put forward only 
the most clear-cut case. I feel that once we begin to give/sell names to 
consumers we are closing the gap between single and "standard" TLDs and not 
promoting fair competition. It also begins to be more difficult to define such 
TLDs without opening the flood gates for gaming.

The very basic case for a .brand TLD would simply be a direct replacement of 
the current brand.com second level domain name. No more than that. In some 
scenarios some names would be strictly internal and wouldn't even be shown 
outside corporate intranet. The number of names would easily be below 10,000 
names even with the localized names and  content. Names are not sold but only 
used for internal purposes (web pages, services). No names are even registered 
to employees. Basically you could imagine the current brand.com offering to be 
moved one level up to .brand top-level-domain. There would be only registrant, 
brand itself, hence the Single Registrant designation. And no registrars would 
be required to act as "middle men" and .brand could register the names for 
itself. All in all it would be a "fully vertically integrated" TLD.

In my opinion that should make a very clear case that we should be able to 
clearly define. The names would be non-transferable (if the .brand goes out of 
business, the TLD would be taken down in a controlled way).

If .brand would like to start selling names, it would have to conform with the 
same rules as everyone else. There would have to be ICANN accredited registrars 
and so on.

So, in a nutshell the requirements for Single Registrant TLDs could be as 
follows:


1)      No name selling

2)      Single registrant

3)      Non-transferrable names


Ron raised a valid point about giving names to business partners. So, what are 
limits and conditions in that? By "giving" I mean giving access, business 
partners not being registrants at all.  Names could probably be "given" only to 
companies in direct relation with the TLD in question, but I admit we do need 
more tangible rules than that to make it work.

I guess that covered my line of thinking, I am happy to answer any questions 
you might have.

PS. While I feel that the vertical integration is the single most important 
issue in the Single Registrant case there are also other smaller DAG 
requirements that won't make sense for Single Registrants.

1)      ICANN reporting should be simplified for Single Registrant cases (No 
need to extended reporting based on single registrant)

2)      Escrow requirements could also be relaxed (based non-transferability 
and single registrant)


BR,

-jr


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: ext Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18. toukokuuta 2010 0:20
To: Ruuska Jarkko (Nokia-CIC/Tampere); bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration 
(VI)--single registrant TLDs

Jarrko and all,

Jarrko wrote: <It is generally seen that Single Registrant TLDs can work if the 
boundaries are correctly defined.>

One of the most difficult things for the VI WG is defining what the boundaries 
would be for a single registrant, so it would be very helpful if we could use 
Nokia as a model to work through what those issues could be.  Would you 
consider putting your potential model forward so that the VI WG could look at 
something 'real' from a 360-degree perspective?  For my part, due to the fact 
that we have no examples of how a brand would use their SR TLD, I don't know 
what boundaries are needed and which ones are extraneous...

Jarrko wrote: <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.
>

Even though the basic parameters you note seem sensible and simple, the devil 
is in the details as to under what conditions names would be "given" to 
business partners as opposed to being "sold"; up to how many can be given away; 
for what purpose can the business partners use those names and what if the 
brand allows second level names that are out of ICANN's perview; etc., etc.  
Transferrable or non-transferrable: under what conditions would/could a brand 
domain be transferred?  What if the brand changes industry as the German steel 
company that morphed into a travel business some year ago - how would that 
affect its business partners, both past and new? How does ICANN take down a 
top-level domain in a controlled way?  What does that entail?  What if a 
business partner has built a significant business around the brand TLD and 
doesn't want to let it go?

These are just a few of the questions that come to my mind.  With more time and 
more minds focused on this, I am sure many, many more questions would come to 
light and all of them would need to be addressed before ICANN can open that 
space in the DNS, in my view.  Everything we do in this regard must have a 
basis upon which ALL brands could follow...

So, in summary, I am not suggesting that the BC not support single registrant 
TLDs; rather I am contending that this is a topic that perhaps needs a working 
group of its own to flesh out all of the pro and con arguments, so that the 
larger ICANN community can weigh in on a recommendation that will - without 
question - have a significant impact on the DNS going forward should it be 
agreed by the ICANN community that brand TLDs are, in fact, necessary for 
innovation (something I personally don't hold any position on at this time).

Unfortunately, the VI issue is like peeling an onion one layer at a time...  
For this reason I am advocating putting the less problematic new TLDs in one 
queue and the more difficult ones in queues of their own until such time as 
various working groups have sorted through all of the issues that surround them 
and reported their finding back to the community.  In the meantime, the rollout 
of non-problematic TLDs should proceed.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

RNA Partners, Inc.
220 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

________________________________
From: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:01 PM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration 
(VI)--single registrant TLDs

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<mailto: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