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

["jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

I think there are many reasons why brands haven't been active in the gTLD 
process.

a) Companies in general are pretty sensitive and protective about their brands 
and committing to a process with unknown schedule and outcome is just too risky
b) Companies might not have been well informed about the whole gTLD process as 
ICANN has only now began more wide-spread communication campaign
c) Companies might not want to get their name associated with gTLD process if 
they've found new business opportunities they don't want to disclose yet

If you go through the DAG3 comments you can pretty easily find many candidates 
for .brand TLDs. Let me assure you that there really is interest for Single 
Registrant TLDs although it might not seem like that.  I think Richard has 
already defined the Single Registrant term clearly enough in many occasions.

BR,

JARKKO RUUSKA
Nokia Corporation
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration,  Tampere, Finland
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx




>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
>Behalf Of ext Richard Tindal
>Sent: 06 April, 2010 03:24
>To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
>
>
>im not saying brands wont apply for TLDs.
>
>I'm saying I haven't seen them ask (in two years of public comment) for the
>amendments to the DAG language that this group is now discussing:  (i) the 
>removal
>of equivalent registrar access rules;  (ii) formation of a new entity called a 
>registry--
>registrar;  (iii) removal of registrar fees for this new entity
>
>The existing DAG language  (and indeed the Nairobi resolution) accommodates
>brands who intend to solely own and operate second level names in their TLD.
>What it doesn't fully accommodate is brands who want to provide large numbers 
>of
>second level names to employees, customers, affiliates, etc.
>
>Once again, I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss this notion of a Single 
>Registrant TLD
>that offers names to other parties.     I just think the discussion would be 
>more
>focused
>if a prospective user of the model joined the group.
>
>For those brands who are closely following this WG  --- please feel free to 
>join the
>group and advocate your SR position
>
>RT
>
>
>On Apr 6, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
>>
>> On 4/5/10 6:19 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Anyway, we do have one announcement by a major brand (.canon) so the idea
>that this is a solution in search of a problem is clearly wrong.
>>> ...
>>
>> And Hewlett-Packard wants "HP".
>>
>> We're discussing policy making, with some unknowns ... When, in what
>> year, will applications be accepted? When will there be a "next"
>> application window? Are we making policy recommendations for the next
>> decade, or for the next four fiscal quarters? ...
>>
>> Given that, paying as much attention to momentary events as we pay to
>> a decade of patient endurance by others is a peculiar choice.
>>
>> HP's not going to get a country code. If they really want one, they
>> can go out and buy a country like everybody else and get it renamed
>> and the iso3166/MA will be happy to oblige. Is Cannon going to get a
>> SR because they just decided they want one, and on their terms? If so,
>> what does consensual, bottom-up, stakeholder process really mean?
>>
>> Eric