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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Correct.    If we decide on zero cross ownership (0CO) the SR Registry would 
have to use an unaffiliated registrar to register the names it needs.  In 
today's competitive registrar market that would be an easy and inexpensive 
thing to do.

I dont think there's any question about whether an SR Registry can register 
names on behalf of others (e.g. members).    It can.    In doing so it would be 
subject to the rights and responsibilities of any registrant.   

RT


On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:59 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>