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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am not looking for solutions for .band or for the company you claim did not 
want TLDS (never head tem say that btw).

I am looking for a solution for the NGOs and other organizations who are 
providing a soclal service, e.g. an avenue to freedom of expression and other 
civil liberties, who see the second, level TLD as a means of achieving their 
goals and who feel that providing these free to their members is a public good 
that warrants their application for a TLD.  ICANn, a corporationin the public 
good, serving this need seems important to me.

and if .brand is able to use the same mechanisms what does it matter?

a.


On 5 Apr 2010, at 18:06, Richard Tindal wrote:

> we didnt give much thought to TMs and brands becoming gTLDs because those 
> parties, for the last two years, have uniformly said that new TLDs
> are unwanted and unnecessary.
> 
> they didnt abstain from comment (for competitive reasons).   They actively 
> challenged the need and utility for new TLDs.
> 
> I'd hate for this group to tie itself in knots trying to create a solution 
> for people who didn't ask for one
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:36 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>