<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for increased civil discourse
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Call for increased civil discourse
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:30:45 -0700
<html><body><span style="font-family:Verdana; color:#000000;
font-size:10pt;"><div>Mike,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Loud, but civil, is fine with me. </div>
<div> </div>
<div><BR></div>
<div>Tim</div>
<div> </div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 8px; FONT-FAMILY:
verdana; COLOR: black; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=replyBlockquote
webmail="1">
<DIV id=wmQuoteWrapper>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject:
[gnso-vi-feb10] Call for increased civil discourse<BR>From: "Michael D. Palage"
<michael@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue, April 06, 2010 11:48 am<BR>To:
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><BR>Tim,<BR><BR>I am all for increased
civil discourse in connection with the activities of this group. However, there
is one fact that I find a little odd about GoDaddy's rather active
participation in this working group. When ICANN's economists previously tried
to engage GoDaddy on this topic they decline, see for example the following
footnote from the most recent Economist report on this issue," VeriSign and Go
Daddy were invited but chose not to participate in that interview process." See
<a
href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-registrar-separation-vertical-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf";
target=_blank>http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registry-registrar-separation-vertical-integration-options-salop-wright-28jan10-en.pdf</a>
<BR><BR>Now while I respect the decision of GoDaddy and VeriSign NOT to speak
with ICANN's economists, VeriSign's contributions to this Working Group is a
little more consistent with their prior approach. <BR><BR>There are a lot of
people on this list that did not have the opportunity to get interviewed by
ICANN's economists and that do not have the luxury of sitting on the GNSO
council and determining the scope of our charter. While I fully support your
call for increased civil discourse, I think it is equally important for the
people at the bottom of the ICANN consensus building process to have their
voices heard, and perhaps a little leeway when they may need to speak a little
louder to have their voices heard.<BR><BR>Just my two cents.<BR><BR>Best
regards,<BR><BR>Michael<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [<A
href="https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose";>mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:52 AM<BR>To: Avri
Doria<BR>Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Mike O'Connor<BR>Subject: RE:
[gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?<BR><BR><BR>Mikey,
thanks. Asking the group to "dial back to a slightly lower level<BR>of
confrontation" is not taking sides nor anything near a
public<BR>reprimand.<BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR>-------- Original Message
--------<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single
registrant"?<BR>From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx><BR>Date: Tue, April 06,
2010 8:01 am<BR>To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc:
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<BR><BR><BR>Mike,<BR><BR>I do not see how taking a
particular side in an ongoing discussion as<BR>neutral behavior.<BR><BR>To call
something protectionism may be correct or it may be wrong on a<BR>factual, but
it is not an insult and is not something that, to my mind,<BR>merits a public
reprimand from a co-chair.<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR><BR>On 6 Apr 2010, at 08:32, Mike
O'Connor wrote:<BR><BR>> <BR>> hi all,<BR>> <BR>> 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.<BR>>
<BR>> 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.<BR>> <BR>> so i'll give
Tim a +1 on this.<BR>> <BR>> thanks,<BR>> <BR>> mikey<BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>>
<BR>>> <BR>>> As long as Milton and Mike want to continue
dismissing certain<BR>>> concerns/points/issues as *protectionism* or
something else equally<BR>>> offensive, we will not get anywhere. I
respect they're right to free<BR>>> speech, but I hope Roberto and Mikey
will respect all of our right to<BR>>> hopefully accomplish something
with the time we spend on this.<BR>>> <BR>>> Tim <BR>>>
<BR>>> -------- Original Message --------<BR>>> Subject: RE:
[gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?<BR>>> From:
Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx><BR>>> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010
5:08 pm<BR>>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim
Ruiz<BR>>> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Brunner-Williams<BR>>>
<ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>> Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> It's very
clear what the rationale is: economic protectionism for<BR>>> existing
registrars and existing business models. <BR>>> The ONLY rationale for
separating registries and registrars was to<BR>>> prevent consumer
lock-in. When the consumer and producer of a domain are<BR>>> the same
entity, any economic or consumer protection requirement that<BR>>>
registrars be used disappears. At that point, to require registrars is
a<BR>>> form of protectionism, similar to the railroad unions' demand
that<BR>>> freight and yard-engine firemen, who were needed on steam
locomotives,<BR>>> be retained on diesel and electric trains.
<BR>>> --MM<BR>>>
________________________________________<BR>>> <BR>>> What is the
rationale for making a brand-TLD use ICANN registrars if<BR>>> they are
giving out domains to their employees or even vendors? I<BR>>> understand
about giving names out to the public at large, but what is<BR>>> the
benefit for the employees or vendors in having to use an icann<BR>>>
registrar? If they gave them out to their employees and/or vendors,
the<BR>>> Registry could still own the names, the names would
be<BR>>> non-transferrable, and they are being used for a specific
purpose. What<BR>>> is the value add of an ICANN-registrar? For example,
if I want .neustar<BR>>> and want to give out a domain name to each of my
employees, contractors<BR>>> and vendors to use for a specific purpose
and once they ceased being an<BR>>> employee, contractor, vendor, etc., I
took back the name, why would I<BR>>> have to use a
registrar?<BR>>> <BR>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman<BR>>> Neustar, Inc.
/ Vice President, Law & Policy<BR>>> <BR>>>
________________________________<BR>>> The information contained in this
e-mail message is intended only for<BR>>> the use of the recipient(s)
named above and may contain confidential<BR>>> and/or privileged
information. If you are not the intended recipient you<BR>>> have
received this e-mail message in error and any review,<BR>>>
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly<BR>>>
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please<BR>>> notify us immediately and delete the original
message.<BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>> From:
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<BR>>> [<A
href="https://email.secureserver.net/#Compose";>mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10<B></B>@icann.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:19
PM<BR>>> To: Eric Brunner-Williams<BR>>> Cc:
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<BR>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we
mean by "single registrant"?<BR>>> <BR>>> I would prefer this
concept not be pursued right now at all, but if it<BR>>> is I prefer
Single Registrant / Single User (SRSU) as the descriptor<BR>>> indicating
that the Registry Operator(RO) is the sole registrant and<BR>>> user of
the second level names and that if such names resolve, they<BR>>> resolve
to a site/tool/resource that is produced/maintained solely by<BR>>> and
for the RO.<BR>>> <BR>>> For example, 650i.bmw or coupes.bmw as
sites produced by BMW for BMW<BR>>> marketing and promotion. Or
search.msn or developers.msn as sites<BR>>> produced by Microsoft for
internet search and developer support.<BR>>> <BR>>> However, if BMW
and/or Microsoft want to offer their vendors, employees,<BR>>> customers,
or anyone else domain names in their TLD, then they are no<BR>>> longer
SRSU TLDs. If they want to set up private access to their systems<BR>>>
for vendors, employees, customers, etc. they don't need a TLD in
the<BR>>> public root to do that. In fact, many enterprises already have
their own<BR>>> TLDs set up for such private use and access.<BR>>>
<BR>>> The examples above use well known trademarks as TLDs so besides
the SRSU<BR>>> issues, there is also the issue of having such marks in
the public root<BR>>> and under contract to ICANN. How well will such IP
owners deal with<BR>>> things like consensus policy, equitable treatment,
enforcement actions,<BR>>> etc.? I may be paranoid, but I see how
effectively IP interests are<BR>>> lobbied within ICANN and I guess I
don't see them taking direction from<BR>>> a bottom up, process driven
institution very well. And if a TLD string<BR>>> is one RO's IP, why
should VeriSign and NeuStar not argue that com and<BR>>> biz are their IP
properties respectively?<BR>>> <BR>>> Cliches like *can of worms*
and *slippery slope* and *day in court* come<BR>>> to mind when I think
of all this. So if the SRSU concept has to move<BR>>> forward, it should
be with much caution and restraint until we can see<BR>>> and understand
all the repercussions.<BR>>> <BR>>> Tim<BR>>> <BR>>>
-------- Original Message --------<BR>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do
we mean by "single registrant"?<BR>>> From: Eric Brunner-Williams
<ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>>> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 12:03
pm<BR>>> To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx><BR>>> <BR>>> <BR>>>
<BR>>> One way of distinguishing something that doesn't yet exist, and
for<BR>>> which we have no examples to point to, and the models for which
we do<BR>>> have examples:<BR>>> - price capped "open" or
"standard" gTLDs,<BR>>> - price uncapped "open" or "standard"
gTLDs,<BR>>> - sponsored gTLDs, and<BR>>> - community-based
gTLDs,<BR>>> is the single purpose or unitary agency of a single
registrant.<BR>>> <BR>>> Milton used "private" vs "public" to
attempt the distinction, and<BR>>> Richard has used a "customer, member,
employee, ..." relationship.<BR>>> <BR>>> I've been trying to
generalize because I don't think these get to the<BR>>> difference. We
don't know or care why registrants use com/net/org ...<BR>>> we used to
care that .net registrants were access network operators or<BR>>> "in the
wire trade", and that .org registrants were non-profit<BR>>>
organizations, and that .com registrants were communists (humor).<BR>>>
<BR>>> The point is, there is no reason common to the registrants, other
than<BR>>> the desire to use a namespace, complicated by preferences, for
.com<BR>>> primarily, and accommodation to prior registrations, trademark
claims,<BR>>> and so on.<BR>>> <BR>>> In the case of a single
registrant there is a reason common to the<BR>>> single registrant, and
all of the registrations by that registrant.<BR>>> The reason will vary
from registrant to registrant, asset management<BR>>> for one, liability
management for another, accounts receivable for a<BR>>> third, customer
care for a fourth, ...<BR>>> <BR>>> I suggest it is the unity, or
singularity of purpose that<BR>>> distinguishes most a "single
registrant" from what we have -- the<BR>>> existing four types of
present, and DAGvX anticipated registry<BR>>> contract types.<BR>>>
<BR>>> This doesn't answer several important questions:<BR>>> -
what is the rational for excepting some asset or liability or<BR>>>
accounts receivable or customer care or ... management tool from<BR>>>
having more than one access channel? Is it size? Is it margin? Is
it<BR>>> quality control?<BR>>> - are brand management solely
instances of single registrant<BR>>> sufficiently different from asset or
liability or ... instances to<BR>>> make policy
differentiation?<BR>>> - what should the ICANN transactional fee be? Is
$0.20, from the<BR>>> purposeless CNOBI market reasonable? Does it
recover cost? Is it<BR>>> equitable where the entry is a brand? Is it
equitable where the entry<BR>>> is a managed asset and the value of the
registry is the savings using<BR>>> an ICANN namespace product rather
than some other asset management tool?<BR>>> <BR>>> I suggest that
there are at least two kinds of "single registrant",<BR>>> what we call
"brand" and what we call "customer" or "member" or ...<BR>>> and that if,
and only if, we decide that one or more of these kinds of<BR>>> "single
registrant" be included in DAGv4, or DAGv5, that there are<BR>>> adequate
gross differences to support differences in policy for these<BR>>> two
kinds, and any other kinds which we come up with.<BR>>> <BR>>>
Eric<BR>>> <BR>> <BR>> - - - - - - - - -<BR>> phone 651-647-6109
<BR>> fax 866-280-2356 <BR>> web <A href="http://www.haven2.com/";
target=_blank>www.haven2.com</A><BR>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public
places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)<BR>>
<BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></span></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|