Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 7 Apr 2010, at 22:50, Richard Tindal wrote:

> We're not debating whether or not Single Registrant (SR) TLDs should be 
> allowed.   They are allowed  -- and have been allowed from the first version 
> of the DAG.      Any registry can register names just to itself and no 
> registry is required to provide open access to registrars.
> 
> Also, no rule we devise will prevent SR TLDs.   We're making rules about who 
> can own registries and registrars, not about who can own domains.  An SR TLD 
> can exist if we recommend zero cross ownership and it can exist if we 
> recommend 100% cross ownership. 

> What we're debating is whether or not,  in order to register its names,   an 
> SR TLD registry must be accredited as a registrar  (and, importantly,  pay 
> the fees that accompany that registrar accreditation).  This is the area of 
> contention.   
> 
> If anyone feels I've mischaracterized the issue please jump in.


Just a nit and you may have covered it.

Depending on the CO policies, whether it is even allowed to be a Registrar in 
order to register second level names. Under 0CO, it cannot be a registrar even 
if it wanted to be.

Also, I think, we are debating what the meaning of SR is and whether an SR can 
register names in its TLD on behalf of others (employees, members, ...) under 
the definition of 'just for itself'.

a.