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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The RySG opinion also stated that neither a Registry Operator OR a Back-end 
service provider could be a Registrar OR Reseller.  Neustar has backed off of 
that one (although I hardly see any complaints from you on that one :)).

That said, like Tim's response before about not speaking on behalf of the 
Registrar Stakeholder Group, I am not speaking on behalf of the Registry 
Stakeholder Group nor have I formally brought this up.  There are other 
registries on this list that can answer this question on their own.

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: Richard Tindal [mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:33 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

Jeff,

This Registry Constituency Supermajority opinion  -- 
http://intratldregistryregistrarseparation.org/ryc-supermajority-opinion-favor-separation
 --  required the use of registrars by Single Registrant TLDs.

Neustar appears to be moving away from that position.    Can you tell us if the 
entire Registry Group is in broader discussions to possibly amend the opinion?

RT




On Apr 6, 2010, at 6:17 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:


Is number of domain names the criteria for single registrant?  I didn't (and 
still do not) think so.  That is why we excluded numbers in Neustar's proposal. 
 The reality is that we need to be creative and give ICANN some latitude to 
interpret the intent of the policy.  If the intent is being circumvented, then 
ICANN needs to have the tools to actually enforce that intent and not be afraid 
of litigating the issue when necessary.

I still do not understand the benefit for the employees of using any registrars 
for a .neustar that I want to give to my employees or contractors to use to 
conduct their business.   Everyone is quick to ask the question of what 
benefits there are to consumers with keeping the status quo with respect to 
registry/registrar separation.  So, I am asking a similar question.  What is 
the benefit of having registrars for a single registrant/user TLD.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:09 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?

That's the slippery slope. Employees, vendors, what about contractors, 
customers, etc. Are millions of eBay buyers and sellers all to be considered 
vendors or contractors? What about Google widget developers and AdWords 
advertisers and publishers?

Even considering just employees - BMW and Microsoft over 90,000 each, IBM 
nearly 400,000. There are existing gTLDs that have less names. Those could be 
potential customers for .auto, .tech, .biz, .com or .whatever.

Perhaps a creative thinking new gTLD operator should structure things so that 
all registrants in effect become vendors.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 2:39 pm
To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Tim,

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> 
[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<mailto: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<mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 12:03 pm
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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