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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,
I don't want to argue, as my role is to co-co-ordinate (I'm not stuttering,
just saying that if the chair co-ordinates, the co-chair co-co-ordinates ;>)
But may I observe that if we adopt this optic, we can close business and go
home, as there is nothing in the DAG preventing anybody from applying under
the current ("separation") rules, and think about anything else later.
I do interpret my job as a co-chair, and this was my understanding in
accepting the nomination, to check whether we can within the limited
timeframe we have find some improvements, even in limited cases, over the
baseline, which is the "separation" status-quo. I believe it is my duty to
explore whether there are some benefits for the market in introducing some
elements of VI as soon as possible and practical. I do not know, as of
today, whether this is possible, practical, and if we can get consensus on a
common plan. But to rule out from the start that this is not possible is not
an option for me, unless this is the consensus of the WG.
Cheers,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, 05 April 2010 22:38
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> A reasonable approach perhaps. But how long will this take? 
> How much can this group tackle reasonably well and still 
> complete in time to have an influence on the DAG? Honestly, 
> from our perspective, since we have no current plans to apply 
> for new TLDs it makes no difference to us. But that's not the 
> situation others are in. Is the group okay with the first 
> round rolling out under the conditions the Board resolved to 
> in Nairobi?
> If not, we need to be realistic about what can be done.
> 
> The policy does not address Singletons, but there is nothing 
> in the DAG preventing brand owners from applying for gTLDs as 
> long as they can live with the same rules as everyone else. I 
> propose we leave it at that and address it further when there 
> is less risk of a rush job that will miss considering some 
> consequence on either registrants or competition. 
> 
> 
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:03 pm
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> As a co-chair, I would like to stay hands off as much as 
> possible, and not have my own ideas influencing the group, 
> but I believe that every now and then it might be good to 
> provide opinions, in particular if they take the shape of 
> questions rather than assertions.
> 
> So, from what I have listened so far, I believe that a part 
> of the folks on the WG would like to make the VI model 
> available for some TLDs, to be better defined, that we can 
> call "Single Registrant" (or a better name to be crafted). 
> The main reason for allowing the vertical integration is the 
> fact that in some cases the registrars do not provide an added value.
> On the other hand, there are concerns that allowing VI for 
> these "Singleton"
> (yes, my past as researcher in abstract algebra gets into the 
> way here) TLDs could give them a competitive advantage on 
> other TLDs, who are obliged to use ICANN-accredited 
> registrars, because they can use direct channels to distribute names.
> 
> So, it seems to me that we need to define some criteria for 
> these "Singletons", ensuring that we limit these TLDs to 
> cases where there will be no competition with the other TLDs.
> Questions that might apply are:
> 1) What is the use of the TLD, in the sense that registrants 
> (or "users of the 2nd level domains", since we might have a 
> distribution channel that is different from "domain name 
> registration" as we intend it currently) should not use the 
> name in this TLD as an alternative to a name in a "general 
> purpose" TLD? - otherwise it will take business away from the 
> market in favour of a competitor with preferential rules
> 2) Do we have a size issue, and how relevant is it? - in 
> other words, does it change if there are 10, 1K, 1M SLDs in 
> the TLD, and why?
> 3) Is this limited to "brands", or "commercial", or not? - in 
> other words, is this limited to cases discussed before like 
> .ibm or .bmw for products or employees, or can I use a 
> .friendsofroberto for my friends?
> 4) Which SLD rules would apply, which not, and why? - for 
> instance (sorry, Avri, for using a potential WG-killer 
> subject), do we have behaviour rules for the WhoIs? 
> (incidentally, I note that the answer to this question might 
> well depend on the answer to Q1)
> 
> I am sure there are more questions.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>