RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template, Single Registrant TLDs

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Richard:
Couldn't be on the call, so I don't know how the discussion of this point went. 
But I do have some things to say about it. 

I think you are correct to point out how the existence of Private name spaces 
under a so-called single-registrant (SR) TLD raises issues about the proverbial 
"level playing field." 
The distinction between "names [that] are only operated by the registry 
entity,"  and "names [that] are provided to other parties" is one way to draw 
the line. 
I have some concerns that that distinction is more about protecting the 
business model of existing registry-registrar combinations than it is about 
fully exploiting the potential of the DNS to create user value. 

However, in the short term (and this WG is nothing if not short term in focus 
at the moment) that distinction may make it possible for SR TLDs to get off the 
ground, leaving the bigger issues for later. 

There will be debates about what constitutes providing a name to "other 
parties." I suggest that we try to remain flexible about that distinction, and 
that the way we draw the line be motivated not by protecting existing business 
models and players, but on providing a "playing field" that works fairly and 
efficiently to meet consumer and user demand. 

If a company competing in the credit card business (.amex) or computer 
equipment business (.ibm) can compete better by offering their customers free 
domain names as an ancillary part of the service, why should they be forced to 
use ICANN-accredited registrars? The name is not detachable from the company, 
so there is no user-switching cost issue, which is the main rationale for 
registrars, am I correct? And they are not really in the same market as a 
standard registrar-registry combination, selling domains that are independent 
and more or less user-owned. 

One  problem is that the potential market and the interests of prospective SR 
TLD operators is not and cannot be represented here. 

--MM


________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Richard Tindal [richardtindal@xxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 11:20 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI Use Case Template,   Single Registrant TLDs

Regarding Single Registrant TLDs.   I've always thought of them as spaces where 
all registered second level names are owned, and all websites/ emails operated, 
 by the entity itself  -- as opposed to the entity's customers, members, 
employees, affiliates, etc.

So if IBM had .IBM it could use it for sites like careers.ibm, products.ibm, 
news.ibm, and the ECLU could use theirs for sites like advocate.eclu, 
volunteer.eclu, resources.eclu etc.     The current DAG accommodates this 
scenario.  The DAG requires this type of registry to register the names through 
an accredited registrar -- who would likely charge the registry a slight markup 
on the registry fee, plus the ICANN registrar fees.   If the registry 
registered 1,000 names for its own use (which seems like a lot to me) the 
registrar markup plus registrar fees on those names would probably cost the 
registry less than $500 per year.

Having said the DAG accommodates this business scenario,  I'm not opposed to 
changing current rules so this type of registry entity could also become a 
registrar in its own TLD.  I'm also OK with waiving normal registrar fees for 
this sort of registry-registrar -- as it's not creating registrant-focused 
workload for ICANN.

However,  if the Single Registrant TLD offers names to other parties 
(customers, members, employees, etc) for use by those parties I think the 
equation has changed.   The registry is now using second level domain names as 
a tool to compete in acquiring customers, members, employees, etc.    It is 
also competing with other TLDs who use the multiple registrar model and whose 
names are subject to regular registrar fees.   In that situation I think the 
Single Registrant TLD should also be subject to registrar fees.    I think it 
creates an uneven playing field if .AMEX competes with .WEB for customers but 
.AMEX does not have to pay registrar fees.

So, in a nutshell, I draw a distinction between Single Registrant TLDs where 
names are only operated by the registry entity,  and Single Registrant TLDs 
where names are provided to other parties.

Look forward to discussing this on tonight's call

RT


On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> hi,
>
> or the example i have been considering:
>
> the Erehwonistan civil liberties union (ECLU) - active in rescuing  and 
> defending political prisoners in Erehwonistan,  which intends to provide a 
> free domain name registration to all of it members as part of its membership 
> package and supporters as thanks for their donations.  but given the human 
> rights situation in Erehwonistan, evidenced by recent problems Infinityplex 
> had with the governement of Erehwonistan, all of the whois entries refer to 
> the ECLU information office which deals with (proxies?) any necessary 
> communications with members.
>
> is this a single registrant (note i think so)?
> does it need a registrar, or need to be a registrar,  to distribute the names?
> which fees does it need to pay ICANN for its public service work?  and why?
>
> a.
>
> On 4 Apr 2010, at 10:14, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>> To give an example of something we don't yet _know_, we don't yet
>> _know_ if when we say "single registrant" we are referring to
>> .quixotic-persona" and some few entrants, say .waiting-for-godot and
>> the entries "vladimir" and "estragon", or a capital or liability
>> accumulation of very large size and a very large class of persons with
>> a relationship to the accumulation, say .dukes-v-walmart with a
>> zonefile consisting entries for each of the 1.6 million women employed
>> at Walmart since 12/26/98, and plaintiff's counsel, defendant's
>> counsel, their witnesses and pleadings, and the courts.
>>
>> We simply don't know if "SR" means
>> {abuse,legal,marketing,sales}.soap-corp or something the size of .org.
>
>