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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Tim:
The concepts of "protectionism" and "regulatory protectionism" are well-known 
in scientific discussions of economic policy, especially trade policy. Anyone 
who studies economic policy, in any sector, knows that the regulatory system, 
legislatures and executive branches engage in various forms of protection or 
favoritism all the time. 

"Featherbedding" is a more colloquial, colorful term that refers to the 
regulatory requirement to use the services of an actor that adds no value and 
serves no purpose other than to keep the actor employed. 

The relevance of both concepts to these discussions should be obvious. I don't 
see how it is possible to have a discussion on these policy topics without 
being able to use those terms. I am sorry if you are offended by that, it isn't 
personal, it's just me calling them as I see them. I respect you and respect 
(and patronize) GoDaddy.

If you want to engage rationally on these issues you need to convince me and 
others that your opposition to SR TLDs is founded on some concept of consumer 
welfare or public interest and that it's not just an attempt to eliminate a 
potential source of competition. If it looks, smells and behaves like 
protectionism that is what I will call it.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 6:23 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> 
> As long as Milton and Mike want to continue dismissing certain
> concerns/points/issues as *protectionism* or something else equally
> offensive, we will not get anywhere. I respect they're right to free
> speech, but I hope Roberto and Mikey will respect all of our right to
> hopefully accomplish something with the time we spend on this.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 5:08 pm
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Brunner-Williams
> <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> It's very clear what the rationale is: economic protectionism for
> existing registrars and existing business models.
> The ONLY rationale for separating registries and registrars was to
> prevent consumer lock-in. When the consumer and producer of a domain are
> the same entity, any economic or consumer protection requirement that
> registrars be used disappears. At that point, to require registrars is a
> form of protectionism, similar to the railroad unions' demand that
> freight and yard-engine firemen, who were needed on steam locomotives,
> be retained on diesel and electric trains.
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> 
> What is the rationale for making a brand-TLD use ICANN registrars if
> they are giving out domains to their employees or even vendors? I
> understand about giving names out to the public at large, but what is
> the benefit for the employees or vendors in having to use an icann
> registrar? If they gave them out to their employees and/or vendors, the
> Registry could still own the names, the names would be
> non-transferrable, and they are being used for a specific purpose. What
> is the value add of an ICANN-registrar? For example, if I want .neustar
> and want to give out a domain name to each of my employees, contractors
> and vendors to use for a specific purpose and once they ceased being an
> employee, contractor, vendor, etc., I took back the name, why would I
> have to use a registrar?
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
> have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:19 PM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> I would prefer this concept not be pursued right now at all, but if it
> is I prefer Single Registrant / Single User (SRSU) as the descriptor
> indicating that the Registry Operator(RO) is the sole registrant and
> user of the second level names and that if such names resolve, they
> resolve to a site/tool/resource that is produced/maintained solely by
> and for the RO.
> 
> For example, 650i.bmw or coupes.bmw as sites produced by BMW for BMW
> marketing and promotion. Or search.msn or developers.msn as sites
> produced by Microsoft for internet search and developer support.
> 
> However, if BMW and/or Microsoft want to offer their vendors, employees,
> customers, or anyone else domain names in their TLD, then they are no
> longer SRSU TLDs. If they want to set up private access to their systems
> for vendors, employees, customers, etc. they don't need a TLD in the
> public root to do that. In fact, many enterprises already have their own
> TLDs set up for such private use and access.
> 
> The examples above use well known trademarks as TLDs so besides the SRSU
> issues, there is also the issue of having such marks in the public root
> and under contract to ICANN. How well will such IP owners deal with
> things like consensus policy, equitable treatment, enforcement actions,
> etc.? I may be paranoid, but I see how effectively IP interests are
> lobbied within ICANN and I guess I don't see them taking direction from
> a bottom up, process driven institution very well. And if a TLD string
> is one RO's IP, why should VeriSign and NeuStar not argue that com and
> biz are their IP properties respectively?
> 
> Cliches like *can of worms* and *slippery slope* and *day in court* come
> to mind when I think of all this. So if the SRSU concept has to move
> forward, it should be with much caution and restraint until we can see
> and understand all the repercussions.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 12:03 pm
> To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> One way of distinguishing something that doesn't yet exist, and for
> which we have no examples to point to, and the models for which we do
> have examples:
> - price capped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - price uncapped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - sponsored gTLDs, and
> - community-based gTLDs,
> is the single purpose or unitary agency of a single registrant.
> 
> Milton used "private" vs "public" to attempt the distinction, and
> Richard has used a "customer, member, employee, ..." relationship.
> 
> I've been trying to generalize because I don't think these get to the
> difference. We don't know or care why registrants use com/net/org ...
> we used to care that .net registrants were access network operators or
> "in the wire trade", and that .org registrants were non-profit
> organizations, and that .com registrants were communists (humor).
> 
> The point is, there is no reason common to the registrants, other than
> the desire to use a namespace, complicated by preferences, for .com
> primarily, and accommodation to prior registrations, trademark claims,
> and so on.
> 
> In the case of a single registrant there is a reason common to the
> single registrant, and all of the registrations by that registrant.
> The reason will vary from registrant to registrant, asset management
> for one, liability management for another, accounts receivable for a
> third, customer care for a fourth, ...
> 
> I suggest it is the unity, or singularity of purpose that
> distinguishes most a "single registrant" from what we have -- the
> existing four types of present, and DAGvX anticipated registry
> contract types.
> 
> This doesn't answer several important questions:
> - what is the rational for excepting some asset or liability or
> accounts receivable or customer care or ... management tool from
> having more than one access channel? Is it size? Is it margin? Is it
> quality control?
> - are brand management solely instances of single registrant
> sufficiently different from asset or liability or ... instances to
> make policy differentiation?
> - what should the ICANN transactional fee be? Is $0.20, from the
> purposeless CNOBI market reasonable? Does it recover cost? Is it
> equitable where the entry is a brand? Is it equitable where the entry
> is a managed asset and the value of the registry is the savings using
> an ICANN namespace product rather than some other asset management tool?
> 
> I suggest that there are at least two kinds of "single registrant",
> what we call "brand" and what we call "customer" or "member" or ...
> and that if, and only if, we decide that one or more of these kinds of
> "single registrant" be included in DAGv4, or DAGv5, that there are
> adequate gross differences to support differences in policy for these
> two kinds, and any other kinds which we come up with.
> 
> Eric
>