Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Jarkko,

So I think the current DAG lets the brand owner do everything you listed below, 
 except for the bankruptcy/ take down at your point 2.   The current DAG doesnt 
oblige registries to sell names to consumers (via registrars) , and it does 
allow registries to register names for their own purpose - so your points 1. 
and 3. are covered.

The problem with your point 2., as Antony pointed out, is 'what is a brand?'.   
   If .NOKIA failed as a single registrant TLD, I dont think there would be 
problems taking .NOKIA out of the root but if .MUSIC (a term for which there 
are many trademarks) failed as a single registrant TLD I think there would be a 
good case to pass .MUSIC on to a new registry operator.   

I think the ICANN staff are working on a way to solve this 'TLD transfer' issue 
as it relates to trademarks.   At the initial allocation of the TLD they solved 
the problem using an objection model.  Perhaps thats how they'll solve the 
transfer issue.   

I can see the single registrant model working well (without upper numerical 
limits on second level names)  as long as there's nice tight language making 
clear that the second level names must be owned and controlled by the registry. 
    If the model is being used to provide names to consumers then I think the 
registry should be treated just like every other registry.

RT

 


On Mar 25, 2010, at 2:11 PM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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:
> 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)
> TLD is not transferrable, if company goes bankrupt, the TLD is taken down in 
> controlled way.
> 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
> 
> 
>