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

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tim,
Noted.
I will do my best in order not to let this discussion delay consensus
building on other aspects.
Cheers,
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, 05 April 2010 23:18
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> Understood. I certainly appreciate the neutral approach you 
> and Mikey are taking and your efforts to keep us focused, 
> moving forward, and finding consensus. I have no problem with 
> discussing VI to see if we can find consensus on it in the 
> short term. But I also think that resolving this Single 
> Entity question is not necessary to do that and will delay 
> the group reaching consensus, and that any discussion that 
> questions the use of accredited registrars is out of scope.
> 
> 
> 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 3:54 pm
> To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@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
> >
>