<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:08:39 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>That's the slippery slope. Employees, vendors, what about
contractors, customers, etc. Are millions of eBay buyers and sellers all to be
considered vendors or contractors? What about Google widget developers and
AdWords advertisers and publishers?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Even considering just employees - BMW and Microsoft over 90,000
each, IBM nearly 400,000. There are existing gTLDs that have less names.
Those could be potential customers for .auto, .tech, .biz, .com or
.whatever.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Perhaps a creative thinking new gTLD operator should
structure things so that all registrants in effect become vendors.</div>
<div> </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: RE:
[gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?<BR>From: "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 2:39 pm<BR>To: Tim
Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric
Brunner-Williams<BR><ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc:
"Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>
<STYLE>
#wmQuoteWrapper v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
#wmQuoteWrapper .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</STYLE>
<STYLE>
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2
4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2
4;}
#wmQuoteWrapper /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper
li.MsoNormal, #wmQuoteWrapper div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:link, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99; color:blue; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper a:visited, #wmQuoteWrapper span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99; color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
#wmQuoteWrapper span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; color:#00B050;}
#wmQuoteWrapper .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; font-size:10.0pt;}
#wmQuoteWrapper @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in
1.0in;}
#wmQuoteWrapper div.Section1 {page:Section1;}
</STYLE>
<DIV class=Section1>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #00b050;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Tim,<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #00b050;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #00b050;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt">What is the rationale for making a brand-TLD use ICANN
registrars if they are giving out domains to their employees or even
vendors? I understand about giving names out to the public at large, but
what is the benefit for the employees or vendors in having to use an icann
registrar? If they gave them out to their employees and/or vendors, the
Registry could still own the names, the names would be non-transferrable, and
they are being used for a specific purpose. What is the value add of an
ICANN-registrar? For example, if I want .neustar and want to give out a
domain name to each of my employees, contractors and vendors to use for a
specific purpose and once they ceased being an employee, contractor, vendor,
etc., I took back the name, why would I have to use a registrar?
<BR><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #00b050;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 6pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR:
#00b050; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Jeffrey J. Neuman</SPAN></B><B><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: #3366ff; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">
<BR></SPAN></B><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR:
#068658; FONT-SIZE: 9pt">Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law &
Policy</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR:
#7d7d7d; FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt"><BR><BR></SPAN><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: gray; FONT-SIZE: 8.5pt"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="font-size:12pt;"><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: gray; FONT-SIZE: 8pt">
<HR style="COLOR: #969696" align=left SIZE=1 width="100%" noShade>
</SPAN></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P style="mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto"
class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: gray;
FONT-SIZE: 6.5pt">The information contained in this e-mail message is intended
only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete
the original message.</SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: #00b050"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P style="MARGIN-TOP: 6pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto" class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'; COLOR: gray; FONT-SIZE:
8.5pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: #00b050;
FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV>
<DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: medium none;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df
1pt solid; BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-TOP: 3pt">
<div><B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif';
FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [<a
href="mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx";>mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx</a>]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Tim Ruiz<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 05, 2010 3:19
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Eric Brunner-Williams<BR><B>Cc:</B>
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean
by "single registrant"?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV></DIV>
<div><o:p> </o:p></div>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">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?<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt">Tim <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE:
10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid;
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; PADDING-LEFT: 6pt; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in;
MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-LEFT: 6pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none; BORDER-RIGHT:
medium none; PADDING-TOP: 0in" id=replyBlockquote>
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>
<P style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY:
'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">-------- 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><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|