Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is so easily gamed as to be risible.  Example:

I become a brand by registering a trademark. I then get a number of "vendors" 
who "buy" something from me for, say, $10/yr.  I then "allocate" them a domain 
name, with an agreement that they are used for "specific purpose."    These 
names are "non-transferrable," but I can delete them and "allocate" them to 
someone else. 

Antony

  


On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:39 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Tim,
>  
> 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?  
> 
> 
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 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.
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:19 PM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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?
>  
> 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.
>  
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 12:03 pm
> To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> One way of distinguishing something that doesn't yet exist, and for
> which we have no examples to point to, and the models for which we do
> have examples:
> - price capped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - price uncapped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - sponsored gTLDs, and
> - community-based gTLDs,
> is the single purpose or unitary agency of a single registrant.
> 
> Milton used "private" vs "public" to attempt the distinction, and
> Richard has used a "customer, member, employee, ..." relationship.
> 
> I've been trying to generalize because I don't think these get to the
> difference. We don't know or care why registrants use com/net/org ...
> we used to care that .net registrants were access network operators or
> "in the wire trade", and that .org registrants were non-profit
> organizations, and that .com registrants were communists (humor).
> 
> The point is, there is no reason common to the registrants, other than
> the desire to use a namespace, complicated by preferences, for .com
> primarily, and accommodation to prior registrations, trademark claims,
> and so on.
> 
> In the case of a single registrant there is a reason common to the
> single registrant, and all of the registrations by that registrant.
> The reason will vary from registrant to registrant, asset management
> for one, liability management for another, accounts receivable for a
> third, customer care for a fourth, ...
> 
> I suggest it is the unity, or singularity of purpose that
> distinguishes most a "single registrant" from what we have -- the
> existing four types of present, and DAGvX anticipated registry
> contract types.
> 
> This doesn't answer several important questions:
> - what is the rational for excepting some asset or liability or
> accounts receivable or customer care or ... management tool from
> having more than one access channel? Is it size? Is it margin? Is it
> quality control?
> - are brand management solely instances of single registrant
> sufficiently different from asset or liability or ... instances to
> make policy differentiation?
> - what should the ICANN transactional fee be? Is $0.20, from the
> purposeless CNOBI market reasonable? Does it recover cost? Is it
> equitable where the entry is a brand? Is it equitable where the entry
> is a managed asset and the value of the registry is the savings using
> an ICANN namespace product rather than some other asset management tool?
> 
> I suggest that there are at least two kinds of "single registrant",
> what we call "brand" and what we call "customer" or "member" or ...
> and that if, and only if, we decide that one or more of these kinds of
> "single registrant" be included in DAGv4, or DAGv5, that there are
> adequate gross differences to support differences in policy for these
> two kinds, and any other kinds which we come up with.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> 
>