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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I don't know how we differentiate between AMEX and, say, BLOG  (for which I 
have a trademark).  

If AMEX can operate with one, self-owned registrar and no registrar fees for 
second level .AMEX names,  can I have this same model for second level .BLOG 
names?

RT


On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>