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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thanks for the message.

>From what you say I feel safe in my conclusion that we really have no 
>indication either way for the decision to move away from Zero Cross Ownership 
>(0CO) policy at this point.

On the SRSU vs. SRMU are you saying it all boils down to what one does with the 
second level?  So if the community cultural/linguistic (CCL) TLD inserts second 
level called member.ccl  or support.ccl there would be no issue with creating 
all the names it wants at the third level.  While this might be an acceptable 
workaround if it was absolutely necessary, I am not sure it makes a lot of 
sense and seems a little superfluous. 

Also I am sure a criteria such as 'virtuousness' cannot be dealt with and tend 
to see such suggestions as straw dogs.  Normally when such a criteria is 
suggested in reference to an NGO, charity or other non profit, it is 
immediately followed by a dismissal, derision, or a suggestion to shunt it off 
to some other 'worthy' effort - like the 'Support to Applicants Requiring 
Assistance'.   I think if we are going to be serious about supporting all needs 
and not just some of the more prominent needs in this group, we need to find a 
criteria -  like perhaps non transferability - that applies equally well to 
commercial and non commercial SR TLDs.

a.



On 6 Apr 2010, at 21:00, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>