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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

im not saying brands wont apply for TLDs.

I'm saying I haven't seen them ask (in two years of public comment) for the 
amendments to the DAG language that this group is now discussing:  (i) the 
removal of equivalent registrar access rules;  (ii) formation of a new entity 
called a registry--registrar;  (iii) removal of registrar fees for this new 
entity

The existing DAG language  (and indeed the Nairobi resolution) accommodates 
brands who intend to solely own and operate second level names in their TLD.    
 What it doesn't fully accommodate is brands who want to provide large numbers 
of second level names to employees, customers, affiliates, etc.

Once again, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss this notion of a Single 
Registrant TLD that offers names to other parties.     I just think the 
discussion would be more focused
if a prospective user of the model joined the group.    

For those brands who are closely following this WG  --- please feel free to 
join the group and advocate your SR position

RT


On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

> 
> On 4/5/10 6:19 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> ...
>> Anyway, we do have one announcement by a major brand (.canon) so the idea 
>> that this is a solution in search of a problem is clearly wrong. 
>> ...
> 
> And Hewlett-Packard wants "HP".
> 
> We're discussing policy making, with some unknowns ... When, in what
> year, will applications be accepted? When will there be a "next"
> application window? Are we making policy recommendations for the next
> decade, or for the next four fiscal quarters? ...
> 
> Given that, paying as much attention to momentary events as we pay to
> a decade of patient endurance by others is a peculiar choice.
> 
> HP's not going to get a country code. If they really want one, they
> can go out and buy a country like everybody else and get it renamed
> and the iso3166/MA will be happy to oblige. Is Cannon going to get a
> SR because they just decided they want one, and on their terms? If so,
> what does consensual, bottom-up, stakeholder process really mean?
> 
> Eric