[gnso-vi-feb10] Re: SRSU versus SRMU

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Avri,

Fair question.   In public comment periods I've seen the complete range of 
opinion (I'm talking here about commentators who appeared to be unaligned with 
registries and registrars).     Some comments favored unlimited cross ownership 
and some proposed strict limits (to prevent concerns of predatory registry 
behavior).    There wasn't a consensus in those comments -- which is why we're 
all here of course.   

I haven't seen comments advocating full vertical integration in the sense we're 
now using it --  a registry entity that itself operates as the sole registrar.  
This may be due to confusion over terminology, or it may be that people 
interpreted GNSO Guideline 19 as saying such a model wasn't permitted 
('Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain 
names and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars'.)

I think it would be useful to narrow down the area where there's disagreement 
over Single Registrant TLDs - because I think there's agreement on much of it.  
 It seems to me there's broad agreement on the notion of Single Registrant 
Single User (SRSU) TLDs.  This is where the registry entity is not only 
registrant for all second level names but also the sole user and operator of 
those names.   An example might be CraigList registering  seattle.Craiglist,  
furniture.craigslist,  faqs.craigslist,  etc.   In all cases Craigslist Inc. is 
the sole registrant and sole user of the names.  I think we're all pretty much 
agreeing that Craiglist should be able to:  (i) become registrar accredited (as 
well as registry accredited), (ii) prevent access by other registrars, and, 
(iii)  not pay the $0.17 per name registrar fee (on this last one we may not 
have complete agreement - but I'm OK with it).

Where we're disagreeing,  as Tim said on yesterday's call, is when there are 
multiple users of the second level names.  I'm going to call this the Single 
Registrant Multiple Users (SRMU) model.  When the registry entity is offering 
second level names to other parties, including employees,  members and 
affiliates, there are some of us who think the registry is now more like any 
other gTLD.  If Craiglist offers its members web addresses like 
richardtindal.craigslist as a place to buy and sell products I think they're 
now competing with a new TLD like .EXCHANGE.    At a minimum I think Craigslist 
should be paying the ICANN per/ name registrar fee in this scenario.

I understand the scenario you're concerned about  is even more specific.   
You're most focused on a non-profit, public good SRMU registry that wants to 
give free names to members, affiliates etc.    I just don't know how we create 
fee and access rules (that are fair and practical) based on a registry's 
virtuousness.   The solution to this may be tied into the Nairobi Board 
resolution regarding 'Support to Applicants Requiring Assistance'.  The WG 
emerging from that Resolution will be looking at ways to support certain TLDs 
that cannot afford the $185K application fee,  the annual  registry/ registrar 
fees, or the technical costs of operating a TLD.  Perhaps the best solution to 
a non profit SRMU TLD will be found in that WG.

RT




On Apr 7, 2010, at 6:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> That will be very interesting to read, I look forward to it
> 
> I am, however,  curious as to whether any those users/registrant/consumers 
> have ever commented in favor of VI, or have requested CO, let alone VI. 
> 
> Since that is the criteria some are recommending as a barrier to discussing 
> VI for SR, I do believe that criteria should be applied equally to 
> discussions on all other aspects of VI or CO.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 6 Apr 2010, at 16:40, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> Avri -  I will be submitting an addendum to the list that outlines what I 
>> believe the benefits to the users/registrants/consumers will be with the 
>> introduction of Vertical Integration
>> 
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] 
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:22 PM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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).   
>> 
>> 
>> Out of curiosity have we seen any strong interest from consumers, 
>> registrants or users in moving away from the Board's position on 0CO?  
>> 
>> While I have spoken to people in the non commercial sector and elsewhere who 
>> are interested in free distribution of second level TLDs to their members, I 
>> have spoken to no one in the non commercial world who is interested in 
>> moving beyond the zero co-ownership status that has been mandated by the 
>> Board.  From this perspective can anyone outline what the advantages are to 
>> users and registrants of any co-ownership arrangements?  I understand why 
>> for profit registries and registrars are interested as it is a good business 
>> opportunity for them, but do not see it doing anything good for the users.
>> 
>> As we have accepted that service of the registrants and users, in their dual 
>> role as consumers and creators of the Internet, is the primary purpose of 
>> our work perhaps we should wait until we see public comments from users and 
>> registrants indicating that we ought to look into co-ownership arrangements 
>> before moving any further with those discussions.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
> 
>