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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mikey, thanks. Asking the group to "dial back to a slightly lower level
of confrontation" is not taking sides nor anything near a public
reprimand.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 06, 2010 8:01 am
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Mike,

I do not see how taking a particular side in an ongoing discussion as
neutral behavior.

To call something protectionism may be correct or it may be wrong on a
factual, but it is not an insult and is not something that, to my mind,
merits a public reprimand from a co-chair.

a.


On 6 Apr 2010, at 08:32, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> 
> hi all,
> 
> sorry -- my schedule is such that i drop off the net for quite a while just 
> after our call. so i'm just working my way through the accumulated email on 
> the list.
> 
> i was also struck by the tone that's developing. can we dial back to a 
> slightly lower level of confrontation please? i think points can be made 
> without putting words in other people's mouths.
> 
> so i'll give Tim a +1 on this.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109 
> fax 866-280-2356 
> web www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 
>