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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I also support this argument.  Tim has clearly defined the point, and
Richard has done the homework.  SRSU needs a cautious, considered approach
in my view as well.

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 5:53 PM
To: Ruiz Tim; Roberto Gaetano; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?


i tend to agree with Tim

Looking back on the list archive we've spent over half our time discussing a
model that almost no-one, in the last two years of public DAG comments, has
asked for.

I'm not saying we shouldn't spend any time on the Single Registrant, Single
User (SRSU) model.  But I do think that making it a major focus of our group
undermines the integrity and credibility of the public comment process.   

If we see a lot of public comments during this PDP in favor of an SRSU model
then lets certainly spend more time on it.    Up until now it's a solution
in search of a problem (for this round).   

RT


On Apr 6, 2010, at 7:17 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> Roberto,
> 
> Understood. I certainly appreciate the neutral approach you and Mikey
> are taking and your efforts to keep us focused, moving forward, and
> finding consensus. I have no problem with discussing VI to see if we can
> find consensus on it in the short term. But I also think that resolving
> this Single Entity question is not necessary to do that and will delay
> the group reaching consensus, and that any discussion that questions the
> use of accredited registrars is out of scope.
> 
> 
> Tim  
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:54 pm
> To: "'Tim Ruiz'" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Tim,
> I don't want to argue, as my role is to co-co-ordinate (I'm not
> stuttering,
> just saying that if the chair co-ordinates, the co-chair co-co-ordinates
> ;>)
> But may I observe that if we adopt this optic, we can close business and
> go
> home, as there is nothing in the DAG preventing anybody from applying
> under
> the current ("separation") rules, and think about anything else later.
> I do interpret my job as a co-chair, and this was my understanding in
> accepting the nomination, to check whether we can within the limited
> timeframe we have find some improvements, even in limited cases, over
> the
> baseline, which is the "separation" status-quo. I believe it is my duty
> to
> explore whether there are some benefits for the market in introducing
> some
> elements of VI as soon as possible and practical. I do not know, as of
> today, whether this is possible, practical, and if we can get consensus
> on a
> common plan. But to rule out from the start that this is not possible is
> not
> an option for me, unless this is the consensus of the WG.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
>> Sent: Monday, 05 April 2010 22:38
>> To: Roberto Gaetano
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
>> 
>> 
>> Roberto,
>> 
>> A reasonable approach perhaps. But how long will this take? 
>> How much can this group tackle reasonably well and still 
>> complete in time to have an influence on the DAG? Honestly, 
>> from our perspective, since we have no current plans to apply 
>> for new TLDs it makes no difference to us. But that's not the 
>> situation others are in. Is the group okay with the first 
>> round rolling out under the conditions the Board resolved to 
>> in Nairobi?
>> If not, we need to be realistic about what can be done.
>> 
>> The policy does not address Singletons, but there is nothing 
>> in the DAG preventing brand owners from applying for gTLDs as 
>> long as they can live with the same rules as everyone else. I 
>> propose we leave it at that and address it further when there 
>> is less risk of a rush job that will miss considering some 
>> consequence on either registrants or competition. 
>> 
>> 
>> Tim 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
>> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 3:03 pm
>> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> 
>> As a co-chair, I would like to stay hands off as much as 
>> possible, and not have my own ideas influencing the group, 
>> but I believe that every now and then it might be good to 
>> provide opinions, in particular if they take the shape of 
>> questions rather than assertions.
>> 
>> So, from what I have listened so far, I believe that a part 
>> of the folks on the WG would like to make the VI model 
>> available for some TLDs, to be better defined, that we can 
>> call "Single Registrant" (or a better name to be crafted). 
>> The main reason for allowing the vertical integration is the 
>> fact that in some cases the registrars do not provide an added value.
>> On the other hand, there are concerns that allowing VI for 
>> these "Singleton"
>> (yes, my past as researcher in abstract algebra gets into the 
>> way here) TLDs could give them a competitive advantage on 
>> other TLDs, who are obliged to use ICANN-accredited 
>> registrars, because they can use direct channels to distribute names.
>> 
>> So, it seems to me that we need to define some criteria for 
>> these "Singletons", ensuring that we limit these TLDs to 
>> cases where there will be no competition with the other TLDs.
>> Questions that might apply are:
>> 1) What is the use of the TLD, in the sense that registrants 
>> (or "users of the 2nd level domains", since we might have a 
>> distribution channel that is different from "domain name 
>> registration" as we intend it currently) should not use the 
>> name in this TLD as an alternative to a name in a "general 
>> purpose" TLD? - otherwise it will take business away from the 
>> market in favour of a competitor with preferential rules
>> 2) Do we have a size issue, and how relevant is it? - in 
>> other words, does it change if there are 10, 1K, 1M SLDs in 
>> the TLD, and why?
>> 3) Is this limited to "brands", or "commercial", or not? - in 
>> other words, is this limited to cases discussed before like 
>> .ibm or .bmw for products or employees, or can I use a 
>> .friendsofroberto for my friends?
>> 4) Which SLD rules would apply, which not, and why? - for 
>> instance (sorry, Avri, for using a potential WG-killer 
>> subject), do we have behaviour rules for the WhoIs? 
>> (incidentally, I note that the answer to this question might 
>> well depend on the answer to Q1)
>> 
>> I am sure there are more questions.
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>> 
> 
>