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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Your putting words in my mouth, but I'm sure that's not intentional ;)

My concern is that all registries have the same rules regarding the use
of accredited registrars, carving out one business model over another
certainly could create unfair competition.  Whatever this WG recommends
it should 1) follow the policy we spent 2+ years developing, and 2)
consider ICANN's committment in section 2.4 of the RAA to abide by the
policy.

As I said, I wish we had given more thought in general to allowing TMs
and Brands to become gTLDs. My concerns with that have more to do with
the evident power of the IP lobby within ICANN's processes than anything
else. My personal belief is that it will come back and bite us all in
the ass later. But that's really not in scope for this WG.


Tim  
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 4:15 pm
To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Tim,

So if Google wants to give out for free .BUZZ domain names to all Google
subscribers for free through its registrar exclusively, you view that as
unfair competition, although the domain name is merely ancillary to the
other services that they provide?

It seems like GoDaddy is more focused on entrenching the existing
distribution model which has served your company very well, how about
letting some innovation in the marketplace.

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?


Whatever the new models are, one should not be given an advantage over
another. The policy laid out a set of principles based on years of
community debate and consensus building. Based on that, discussing when
registrars *should not* be used *is* out of scope. Perhaps the Council
needs to discuss and clarify.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:15 pm
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

I do not beleive that this can be unilaterally ruled out of scope.

I think that it is key to any VI solution and without it, the status quo
as defined by the Board might as well remain in place as that only
affect business arrangements as opposed to affecting innovative new
models for TLDS.

a.

On 5 Apr 2010, at 15:52, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> Tim,
> 
> I agree that this concept not be pursued right now at all, as it is a
> distraction from the policy the GNSO recommended to the Board, and
> which the Board approved at Paris.
> 
> I propose that we form a "group" around the proposition that whatever
> "single registrant" is or are (as it may be more than one distinct
> thing), it is out of scope for the policy recommendation on changes,
> if any, to the registry registrar separation business rule that has
> existed up until the Nairobi Surprise.
> 
> Eric