Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs

[<jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

Firstly, let me get back to my original suggestion. Here's the essence of it:

Private/Brand/Single registrant TLDs should be able to register their own names 
without registrars as long as the following rules apply:

 1.  Names are not sold and only used for internal purposes (Business partners 
could be allowed to use names but brand owner would remain as the only 
registrant)
 2.  TLD is not transferrable, if company goes bankrupt, the TLD is taken down 
in controlled way.
 3.  Normal ICANN fees apply to names that are registered

In my opinion there's a clear demand by the big companies for these kind of 
"closed" TLDs. I am not exactly sure why so few companies have come out with 
this, but definitely there has been many uncertainties in the whole gTLD 
process, this VI issue being one.

I think the problem in limiting the amount of names to be sold is that it kind 
of allows every new TLD to sell certain number of the best names without 
registrars. This could be viewed as unfair competition but then again it might 
not. Also the exact number of names would be really hard to define as there are 
many kinds of companies applying for a TLD. If I my memory serves me right the 
the number in DAG2 was 100,000 names.

Secondly about giving names to consumers. I left it out from my first mail for 
a reason. I think we'll run into big problems real quick in defining the 
boundaries for that. I imagine it could work, if the names are extremely 
closely related to brand owners' services. You could imagine facebook serving 
names instead of URLs they giving out today. The real question is if you have 
deep enough pockets and can afford giving out millions of names, will that 
introduce unfair competition without registrars being used?

BR,

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









On 25.3.2010 19.51, "ext Richard Tindal" <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:

Antony has identified a challenge with the single-registrant model.

To re-state it, I could operate as the  Music Domains 'brand', apply for 
.MUSIC,  provide second level MUSIC names to worldwide customers, have myself 
as the registrant for all those names (but give customers a license to use ) 
and circumvent any equivalent registrar access and/or registrar fee rules that 
might be in place for other TLDs.

Jarkko/ All  - Is a solution to this putting a numerical limit on the number of 
second level names that can be registered?  Lets say the limit was 1,000 names. 
 This should give the 'brand' the ability to run its own marketing sites - e.g. 
   newproducts.nokia,   phones.nokia,  employment.nokia,   news.nokia,  etc.

What the 1,000 name limit wouldn't do is allow Nokia to sell/ bundle/ giveaway 
names to customers.    I dont see a solution to that perceived need  (although 
others may).    In fact,  I dont know why Nokia should be any different from 
any other registry if it was providing names to registrants.

At a higher level of questioning ---   Are any brands really planning to do 
that?    In the last 3 years of public comments on new TLDs I havent seen or 
heard one comment from a 'brand' advocating that model?    What I have seen is 
almost uniform comments from 'brands' that new TLDs are not necessary and are 
not justified by economic analysis.  I dont mind working to find a solution for 
the 'brand' issue but I wouldnt want us to spend a lot of time working on a 
solution for a group who have not been asking for a solution.

RT





On Mar 25, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

Apologies for having to ask this, but what is a brand?

If it's anyone with a trademark, then the obvious thing to do if you want to 
avoid the registrar channel is get a trademark, "license" the names out (isn't 
this the legal fiction anyway?), and avoid all ICANN fees and other pesky 
restrictions....

Consider also a sports franchise (say the NBA) or an automobile manufacturer 
(say BMW).  The NBA would want to provide each of its franchisees with a .nba 
name, for instance lakers.nba.  They might also want to register/protect the 
names of all the players, as well as provide names to authorized ticket 
vendors, merchandise vendors, etc.  In the case of BMW, they might want to 
issue a domain name to each authorized dealership, repair facility, or 
authorized fan club.

It is just as silly to make them go to a registrar to do all of this stuff as 
it would be for them to use a registrar just to give out emails.  Essentially, 
a middleman with no added value.

Antony


On Mar 25, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:




Avri,

(JR) In my opinion it is ok for brand TLDs to give out names to consumers if 
the names are very tightly connected to the brand owner's (online) services. 
But also then there would be the question of unfair competition with "open " 
TLDs.  However, we need to keep in mind that running a big TLD is a relatively 
costly business, so I don't see many TLDs just giving names out just for fun.

(SVG) I don't see how that can work. Either the brand TLD operator has to own 
all of its domains and cannot distribute them to third parties (which doesn't 
prevent the brand owner from leasing names out or entrusting them to others 
BTW), and that way the registrar requirement may not be needed, or the brand 
TLD operator is allowed to give or sell names to third parties and in that case 
the playing field should be even with all other TLDs that do distribute names 
and the TLD operator should have to work through ICANN registrars.

Thanks,


Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur Général / General manager
+33 1 48 01 83 51

INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names
124-126, rue de Provence
75008 Paris
France
0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local)
De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67
www.indom.com <http://www.indom.com/>

Daily domain name industry news: www.domaines.info <http://www.domaines.info/>
Mon blog/My blog : www.stephanevangelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com/>
Twitter : stephvg