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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Couldn't agree more.

Stéphane

Le 6 avr. 2010 à 00:23, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 
> As long as Milton and Mike want to continue dismissing certain
> concerns/points/issues as *protectionism* or something else equally
> offensive, we will not get anywhere. I respect they're right to free
> speech, but I hope Roberto and Mikey will respect all of our right to
> hopefully accomplish something with the time we spend on this.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 5:08 pm
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Ruiz
> <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Brunner-Williams
> <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> It's very clear what the rationale is: economic protectionism for
> existing registrars and existing business models. 
> The ONLY rationale for separating registries and registrars was to
> prevent consumer lock-in. When the consumer and producer of a domain are
> the same entity, any economic or consumer protection requirement that
> registrars be used disappears. At that point, to require registrars is a
> form of protectionism, similar to the railroad unions' demand that
> freight and yard-engine firemen, who were needed on steam locomotives,
> be retained on diesel and electric trains. 
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> 
> What is the rationale for making a brand-TLD use ICANN registrars if
> they are giving out domains to their employees or even vendors? I
> understand about giving names out to the public at large, but what is
> the benefit for the employees or vendors in having to use an icann
> registrar? If they gave them out to their employees and/or vendors, the
> Registry could still own the names, the names would be
> non-transferrable, and they are being used for a specific purpose. What
> is the value add of an ICANN-registrar? For example, if I want .neustar
> and want to give out a domain name to each of my employees, contractors
> and vendors to use for a specific purpose and once they ceased being an
> employee, contractor, vendor, etc., I took back the name, why would I
> have to use a registrar?
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> ________________________________
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
> have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:19 PM
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams
> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> 
> I would prefer this concept not be pursued right now at all, but if it
> is I prefer Single Registrant / Single User (SRSU) as the descriptor
> indicating that the Registry Operator(RO) is the sole registrant and
> user of the second level names and that if such names resolve, they
> resolve to a site/tool/resource that is produced/maintained solely by
> and for the RO.
> 
> For example, 650i.bmw or coupes.bmw as sites produced by BMW for BMW
> marketing and promotion. Or search.msn or developers.msn as sites
> produced by Microsoft for internet search and developer support.
> 
> However, if BMW and/or Microsoft want to offer their vendors, employees,
> customers, or anyone else domain names in their TLD, then they are no
> longer SRSU TLDs. If they want to set up private access to their systems
> for vendors, employees, customers, etc. they don't need a TLD in the
> public root to do that. In fact, many enterprises already have their own
> TLDs set up for such private use and access.
> 
> The examples above use well known trademarks as TLDs so besides the SRSU
> issues, there is also the issue of having such marks in the public root
> and under contract to ICANN. How well will such IP owners deal with
> things like consensus policy, equitable treatment, enforcement actions,
> etc.? I may be paranoid, but I see how effectively IP interests are
> lobbied within ICANN and I guess I don't see them taking direction from
> a bottom up, process driven institution very well. And if a TLD string
> is one RO's IP, why should VeriSign and NeuStar not argue that com and
> biz are their IP properties respectively?
> 
> Cliches like *can of worms* and *slippery slope* and *day in court* come
> to mind when I think of all this. So if the SRSU concept has to move
> forward, it should be with much caution and restraint until we can see
> and understand all the repercussions.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] What do we mean by "single registrant"?
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, April 05, 2010 12:03 pm
> To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
> One way of distinguishing something that doesn't yet exist, and for
> which we have no examples to point to, and the models for which we do
> have examples:
> - price capped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - price uncapped "open" or "standard" gTLDs,
> - sponsored gTLDs, and
> - community-based gTLDs,
> is the single purpose or unitary agency of a single registrant.
> 
> Milton used "private" vs "public" to attempt the distinction, and
> Richard has used a "customer, member, employee, ..." relationship.
> 
> I've been trying to generalize because I don't think these get to the
> difference. We don't know or care why registrants use com/net/org ...
> we used to care that .net registrants were access network operators or
> "in the wire trade", and that .org registrants were non-profit
> organizations, and that .com registrants were communists (humor).
> 
> The point is, there is no reason common to the registrants, other than
> the desire to use a namespace, complicated by preferences, for .com
> primarily, and accommodation to prior registrations, trademark claims,
> and so on.
> 
> In the case of a single registrant there is a reason common to the
> single registrant, and all of the registrations by that registrant.
> The reason will vary from registrant to registrant, asset management
> for one, liability management for another, accounts receivable for a
> third, customer care for a fourth, ...
> 
> I suggest it is the unity, or singularity of purpose that
> distinguishes most a "single registrant" from what we have -- the
> existing four types of present, and DAGvX anticipated registry
> contract types.
> 
> This doesn't answer several important questions:
> - what is the rational for excepting some asset or liability or
> accounts receivable or customer care or ... management tool from
> having more than one access channel? Is it size? Is it margin? Is it
> quality control?
> - are brand management solely instances of single registrant
> sufficiently different from asset or liability or ... instances to
> make policy differentiation?
> - what should the ICANN transactional fee be? Is $0.20, from the
> purposeless CNOBI market reasonable? Does it recover cost? Is it
> equitable where the entry is a brand? Is it equitable where the entry
> is a managed asset and the value of the registry is the savings using
> an ICANN namespace product rather than some other asset management tool?
> 
> I suggest that there are at least two kinds of "single registrant",
> what we call "brand" and what we call "customer" or "member" or ...
> and that if, and only if, we decide that one or more of these kinds of
> "single registrant" be included in DAGv4, or DAGv5, that there are
> adequate gross differences to support differences in policy for these
> two kinds, and any other kinds which we come up with.
> 
> Eric
> 
>