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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I dont think the work of this group affects the timeline for new TLDs.  I think 
the Board resolution makes clear that if we're unable to recommend a consensus 
position
new TLDs will proceed using an interpretation of the Nairobi resolution.

I'm simply asking where the demand is for Single Registrant Single User.    I 
haven't seen it in public comment.    

RT


On Apr 6, 2010, at 8:08 AM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Richard,
> 
> I understand you just want to wrap things up so you can start filing new
> gTLD applicants, and I understand why registrars would love to preserve
> their monopoly in the existing gTLD distribution marketplace. However, since
> as early 2001 registries have ask for the flexibility to provide domain name
> registration services direct to registrants. These concerns were then voiced
> in connection with the .MUSEUM and .POST agreements which the registrar
> constituency vehemently objected to. 
> 
> I find it interesting that instead of focusing on how to incorporate RAA
> registrant safeguards into a registry agreement, registrars just want to
> kill the whole single registrant idea. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:53 PM
> To: Ruiz Tim; Roberto Gaetano; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> i tend to agree with Tim
> 
> Looking back on the list archive we've spent over half our time discussing a
> model that almost no-one, in the last two years of public DAG comments, has
> asked for.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't spend any time on the Single Registrant, Single
> User (SRSU) model.  But I do think that making it a major focus of our group
> undermines the integrity and credibility of the public comment process.   
> 
> If we see a lot of public comments during this PDP in favor of an SRSU model
> then lets certainly spend more time on it.    Up until now it's a solution
> in search of a problem (for this round).   
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>