<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- To: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:19:24 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>I would prefer this concept not be pursued right now
at all, but if it is I prefer Single Registrant / Single User
(SRSU) as the descriptor indicating that the Registry Operator(RO) is the sole
registrant and user of the second level names and that if such
names resolve, they resolve to a site/tool/resource that is
produced/maintained solely by and for the RO.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>For example, 650i.bmw or coupes.bmw as sites produced by BMW for BMW
marketing and promotion. Or search.msn or developers.msn as sites produced by
Microsoft for internet search and developer support.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>However, if BMW and/or Microsoft want to offer their vendors, employees,
customers, or anyone else domain names in their TLD, then they are no longer
SRSU TLDs. If they want to set up private access to their systems for vendors,
employees, customers, etc. they don't need a TLD in the public root to do that.
In fact, many enterprises already have their own TLDs set up for such private
use and access.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The examples above use well known trademarks as TLDs so besides the SRSU
issues, there is also the issue of having such marks in the public root and
under contract to ICANN. How well will such IP owners deal with things like
consensus policy, equitable treatment, enforcement actions, etc.? I may be
paranoid, but I see how effectively IP interests are lobbied within ICANN and I
guess I don't see them taking direction from a bottom up, process driven
institution very well. And if a TLD string is one RO's IP, why should VeriSign
and NeuStar not argue that com and biz are their IP properties
respectively?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Cliches like *can of worms* and *slippery slope* and *day in court* come
to mind when I think of all this. So if the SRSU concept has to move forward,
it should be with much caution and restraint until we can see and
understand all the repercussions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Tim </div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?<BR>From: Eric
Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Mon, April 05, 2010
12:03 pm<BR>To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><BR><BR>One way of distinguishing
something that doesn't yet exist, and for<BR>which we have no examples to point
to, and the models for which we do<BR>have examples:<BR>- price capped "open"
or "standard" gTLDs,<BR>- price uncapped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,<BR>-
sponsored gTLDs, and<BR>- community-based gTLDs,<BR>is the single purpose or
unitary agency of a single registrant.<BR><BR>Milton used "private" vs "public"
to attempt the distinction, and<BR>Richard has used a "customer, member,
employee, ..." relationship.<BR><BR>I've been trying to generalize because I
don't think these get to the<BR>difference. We don't know or care why
registrants use com/net/org ...<BR>we used to care that .net registrants were
access network operators or<BR>"in the wire trade", and that .org registrants
were non-profit<BR>organizations, and that .com registrants were communists
(humor).<BR><BR>The point is, there is no reason common to the registrants,
other than<BR>the desire to use a namespace, complicated by preferences, for
.com<BR>primarily, and accommodation to prior registrations, trademark
claims,<BR>and so on.<BR><BR>In the case of a single registrant there is a
reason common to the<BR>single registrant, and all of the registrations by that
registrant.<BR>The reason will vary from registrant to registrant, asset
management<BR>for one, liability management for another, accounts receivable
for a<BR>third, customer care for a fourth, ...<BR><BR>I suggest it is the
unity, or singularity of purpose that<BR>distinguishes most a "single
registrant" from what we have -- the<BR>existing four types of present, and
DAGvX anticipated registry<BR>contract types.<BR><BR>This doesn't answer
several important questions:<BR>- what is the rational for excepting some asset
or liability or<BR>accounts receivable or customer care or ... management tool
from<BR>having more than one access channel? Is it size? Is it margin? Is
it<BR>quality control?<BR>- are brand management solely instances of single
registrant<BR>sufficiently different from asset or liability or ... instances
to<BR>make policy differentiation?<BR>- what should the ICANN transactional fee
be? Is $0.20, from the<BR>purposeless CNOBI market reasonable? Does it recover
cost? Is it<BR>equitable where the entry is a brand? Is it equitable where the
entry<BR>is a managed asset and the value of the registry is the savings
using<BR>an ICANN namespace product rather than some other asset management
tool?<BR><BR>I suggest that there are at least two kinds of "single
registrant",<BR>what we call "brand" and what we call "customer" or "member" or
...<BR>and that if, and only if, we decide that one or more of these kinds
of<BR>"single registrant" be included in DAGv4, or DAGv5, that there
are<BR>adequate gross differences to support differences in policy for
these<BR>two kinds, and any other kinds which we come up
with.<BR><BR>Eric<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|