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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jarkko, well put.  If I may elevate and enhance your list, there is a 'D'
and 'E'

D] Many brands don't want to exhibit the double standard of their position -
many have their legal team waving a very public flag against new TLDs whilst
in the mean time their CEO and marketing prepare their applications or call
ICANN to find out how to get theirs.  They don't want the embarrassment of
appearing that the right hand and left hand don't know what each other are
doing.

E] Similar to above, company has done everything in their power to stop or
delay the new TLDs, but has a 'plan B' to participate in an application
should their primary efforts fail.  Again, quiet about the decision to apply
because if plan B leaked out they'd undermine their efforts to sabotage the
new TLD program.


Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax


On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:39 AM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx <
jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>