RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs

["Mustala, Tero (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <tero.mustala@xxxxxxx>]

Richard,
 
 
I just want to comment your higher-level question: The fact that companies are 
not advocating the possibilities for new TLDs does not necessarily mean, that 
nobody would be seriously considering it. For commercial companies the 
arguments to consider applying for a "Brand TLD" may often be related to the 
value of the brand. Either to increase the value with own TLD or in a 
preventive plan just to ensure, that nobody else would get the TLD of identical 
string with the brand.
 
In both cases it would not be wise to publish the interest or intentions in too 
early phase, especially as the schedule for these new TLDs has been open for 
long time and still is. Such actions would just increase the risk to 
speculative applications leading to costly auctions. The cost related to new 
TLDs are already high enough without any possible auctions. So lack of public 
announcements does not necessarily equal to lack of interest.
 
with best regards
 
Tero
 
Tero Mustala 
Principal Consultant, 
CTO/Industry Environment 
Nokia Siemens Networks 
tero.mustala@xxxxxxx 


________________________________

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of ext Richard Tindal
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:52 PM
To: Van Couvering Antony; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Private TLDs


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