RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

just to clarify my first remark:  our policy should not be specific to the
type of business model chosen by the registry.  I guess the real metric is
whether it resolves in the DNS?  or is in the zone file?
 
tom
 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Thomas Barrett - EnCirca
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:42 PM
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; richardtindal@xxxxxx; avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; mueller@xxxxxxx;
michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs


I would avoid using words like "sold".  whether they are sold or not are not
relevant to this discussion.
 
Using a single registrant in the Whois sounds like one big Proxy service.
 
Some questions I have are:
 
1. Do UDRP rules apply?
2. Will there be a public thick whois?
3. Will there be trademark protection mechanisms available?
4. Will there be a way to reveal the true identity of the end-user?
 
 
Tom Barrett
EnCirca

 
  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 4:11 PM
To: richardtindal@xxxxxx; avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx;
avri@xxxxxxx; mueller@xxxxxxx; michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs


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