RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post

["jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello Ron (and all),

I agree that there are things that could be done to clarify the overall gTLD 
process for everyone. Communication campaign to reach all the companies around 
the globe just being one of them. Unfortunately, it seems that we are running 
out of time and we just have play with the cards we've been dealt. For 
potential brand applicants it means the submission of their applications with 
the rest of the standard TLDs.  Only time will tell how the rules are changed 
for the subsequent rounds (Whenever they will happen).

Up until now, I've never heard anything about brands not being able to apply as 
standard TLDs. In the Vertical Integration Working Group (which I am also a 
member of) there was a certain reluctance towards granting exceptions to any 
special TLDs (including brands, communities, orphans , etc.) regarding vertical 
integration, but I fail to recall any discussion about disqualifying brands as 
potential TLD applicants.  After all, the WG was chartered to solve the 
cross-ownership between registries and registrars, not to specify who is 
eligible to apply.

As a summary, my understanding about the current ICANN ruling is that they are 
not excluding any type applicants and that all applicants have to live with the 
same rules  (Geographical and Community type of applicants being the only 
exceptions).

Undoubtedly DAG5 will tell us more about this.

Thanks,

-jr







JARKKO RUUSKA
Head of Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration
Nokia Corporation
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx


From: ext Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 25. lokakuuta 2010 19:47
To: Ruuska Jarkko (Nokia-CIC/Tampere); bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post

Jarrko and all,

I don't disagree with your rationale for brands being 'good stewards' and, more 
importantly, I was not suggesting brands go to the end of the queue.  Having 
listened closely at the BC Washington meeting presentation on 'Brands as gTLDs' 
by Fred Felman, Debbie Hughes and Kristina Rossette and correlating that to the 
discussions that we have had on this topic within the Vertical Integration 
Working Group (VIWG), the realization of what needs to be done before the we 
will see brand names in the root became very clear to me.  Hence my 
recommendation to establish a separate, parallel path for brands to address the 
issues that abound in that 'segment' of potential applicants.

Two key aspects formed the basis for my recommendation, as follows:


 1.  The VIWG has barely scratched the surface on the topic of Single Registrar 
Single User (SRSU - loosely defined as brands being restricted to using domain 
names solely for products and services) and still less discussion has been had 
regarding Single Registrant Multiple User (SRMU - loosely defined as brands 
providing domain names to customers or subscribers).  These topics need to be 
discussed in greater detail and policies need to be put in place prior to 
brands entering the application phase, IMHO.  At this point in time, the VIWG 
appears to be stuck in the doldrums awaiting a push from either the Board of 
GNSO vis-à-vis where it goes from here so I don't know who or when these 
important topics will be taken up.

Moreover, I am not personally aware of anyone on the VIWG who supports allowing 
brands to queue up in the 'standard' or 'community-based' application lines to 
submit their documentation like any other applicant.  My understanding is that 
it is not simply a question of whether brands will accept the ICANN principle 
of equal access for all registrars to sell all domain names; rather brand name 
gTLDs is a new addition to the heretofore categories of 'generic' and 'country 
code' TLDs and therein lays the issue.


 1.  Corporations the world over function on the basis of annual budgets.  
Without a prescribed budget, it is problematic to initiate any new activity 
within a company.  Therefore, any brand that is planning on submitting an 
application when the window opens must have included all of the necessary costs 
around applying for a gTLD in their fiscal 2011 budget, which means that 
discussions will have to be already had within the executive suite, legal, 
technical, communications, marketing and financial departments to get the 
go-ahead on such an initiative.  With all of the open issues that still remain 
with regard to the Applicant Guidebook, I question how many brands have taken 
these steps within the 50-150 companies you mention.  My experience working in 
the corporate world is that very few executives will put their careers on the 
line by taking such bold action as to promote participation in something that 
is yet to be defined in absolute terms, as is our current DAGv4, or internally 
within their companies.

Without a budget in place and determined executive suite leadership, very few 
brands will tread into ICANN waters when the application window for new gTLDs 
opens, in my view.  A few, perhaps like Nokia, who have long been involved in 
the ICANN community and therefore can draw on that experience, may be prepared 
to go forward.  However, most brands, in my view, will wait and watch to learn 
from the experience of those few companies that step forward when the time 
comes.

Having participated for the better part of a year on the VIWG, the overall 
position that I have come to with regard to new gTLDs is that:


 1.  with all of the moving parts of an untested, new gTLD process we should 
not introduce yet another set of critical issues (VI) on top of that unless and 
until we have gained some experience vis-à-vis how the proposed process 
functions in real life;


 1.  the compliance department needs a highly-qualified leader and 
significantly more staff to enforce the contracts (old and new alike)  This is 
one area that has been sorely lacking in the first decade of ICANN's existence 
and going forward to the coming 10 years the number of TLDs compliance will 
watch over is expected to increase by an order of magnitude of ten.


 1.  the compliance department needs new policies to address all of the 
nefarious activities that are currently happening in the 
'user-registrar-registry domain name registration' chain of activities, which 
the VIWG unearthed during its deliberations; and finally,


 1.  every activity undertaken by ICANN must be done with the view of building 
institutional confidence to ensure that the ICANN experiment is not overtaken 
by a zealous ITU or other such multilateral organization.

I trust that my blog post with regard to brands falls in line with that 
position.

I hope that this rather long posting adds more clarity to the matter, but am 
happy to discuss this further should you so wish.

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: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 2:59 AM
To: randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post

Thanks Ron for sharing this.

The blog post was a pretty accurate and thorough description of what has been 
going on lately with ICANN and the gTLD program. I agree with you for the most 
part, but some things you wrote didn't make any sense to me and left me in 
state of confusion.

More specifically the topic related to the brand TLDs was the one that caught 
my eye. You stated that the schedule of so called brand TLDs should be pushed 
further compared to the regular TLDs. And the reason for this would be the 
unfinished work with the definition of SRSU and other brand TLD related issues.

I really fail to see the logic in this. Let me list a couple of reasons why 
brand TLDs should be delegated first rather than be put to the end of the queue.


1)      The companies behind brand TLDs are usually in good financial standing 
and can afford well-known back-end registry service provider or skilled enough 
people to run the registry properly thus posing no threat to stability or 
security of the root

2)      The brands by definition have a reputation to maintain. That thing 
alone guarantees that the TLDs are properly operated to avoid any negative 
publicity.

3)      The requirement of having to use registrars (Which SRSU model is 
supposed to fix) is nothing but a small inconvenience and cost item  for big 
corporations. Nothing really keeps them from applying a standard TLD and bear 
the added minor financial impact of contracting a registrar.

4)      ICANN can't really say no to the money these kind of easy and safe TLD 
applications would bring on the table (it is estimated that there would be at 
least 50-150 of them, $185,000 each, you can do the math).

5)      Last but not least ICANN could be facing legal implications of delaying 
the brand TLDs as the big corporations might find it as a discriminatory 
approach


Thanks,

-jr


JARKKO RUUSKA
Head of Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration
Nokia Corporation
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland
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: 23. lokakuuta 2010 0:53
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Blog post

Dear all,

As it may have relevance to members of the BC, I thought I should make you 
aware of a blog post I made on CircleID regarding the long delays and long 
timelines that lay ahead vis-à-vis new gTLDs [ 
http://www.circleid.com/posts/and_then_there_was_the_issue_of_time/ ].

The October 12th BC meeting in Washington, particularly the session on "brands 
as gTLDs" that Fred Felman chaired, was extremely valuable in fleshing out the 
complexities around brands as TLDs and got me to thinking more about how ICANN 
best handle this important aspect.  I recommend that members go back and read 
the transcripts or listen to the MP3 to learn more if they didn't participate 
remotely.  It got me to thinking more about what still needs to be done and how 
we should address that.  In my post, I suggest putting all brands on a separate 
path towards gTLDs until such time as the issues around SRSU and the like have 
been properly considered and appropriate recommendations are put in place.  I 
believe that this would address a number of concerns from different groups and 
build institutional confidence in ICANN.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
President

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