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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Jeff

I understand what you are saying,  and it is logical.   

However,  the current DAG allows brands to do what they want in an easy and 
inexpensive way.   It may not be perfectly tailored to them, but it works.      
 

Had they submitted comments saying  Question 29 of the Applicant Evaluation 
Criteria ('Shared Registry System Performance') wasn't applicable to their 
needs we might have amended Question 29.  But over a two year period they 
didn't  --- so we didn't amend Question 29.     Similarly, they didn't propose 
changes to the Whois for SR TLDs.

In the second round of TLDs these lessons learned and nuances will no  doubt 
result in an amended DAG and amended policies.    In the meantime the current 
DAG allows brands to do what they want.  

If that's not the case I'd like to see a brand step forward and articulate how 
the current DAG doesn't work for them.    I haven't heard them do that so far.  

RT  






On Apr 8, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I think there is a little bit more to the debate.  One of the issues is with 
> the single registrant whether there is any need for the registry or registrar 
> functionality at all.  In other words, is there a need to have a separation 
> of the registry/registrar functionality?  Is there a need for an SRS (shared 
> registration system) at the registry level? Is there nothing more than pure 
> DNS? Why go through the charade of having to set criteria for registrars that 
> no one other than the registry itself could meet?
> 
> So if there is no true concept of a registrar, then is ownership an actual 
> issue?
> 
> Let me explain....
> 
> An organization (commercial or noncommercial or nongovernmental) could 
> establish a SR TLD whereby it owns all of the names and allows others to use 
> those names, but there is no concept of having others" register" names.  For 
> example, what if the International olympic committee wanted .olympic and they 
> only had 200 registrations (1 for each country's olympic committee...i.e., 
> USOC.olympic (for the US Olympic Committee). In that case, you could have one 
> person at the International Olympic Committee enter all of the relevant 
> information into a database (notice I didn't use the word registry database). 
>  There is no SRS or WHOIS functionality per se normally thought of as a 
> registry, and no real registrar functionality of going through a EPP 
> registration process.  There is no value add of having to go through an 
> entity we today call a registrar.
> 
> This is a made up example, but I think is very real and in some ways similar 
> to what I have heard .post is today.  I don't have any inside information for 
> .post, but as I understand the application from years ago, .post may want to 
> give the second level registrations to the national post offices to use as 
> they see fit.  The charade of having to select registrars because of legacy 
> requirements just makes no sense.  There is no real concept of a registrar in 
> that sense nor any value add of requiring the ultimate recipient of the .post 
> ( the national post offices) to have to select a registrar.  There is no need 
> for the complexity of setting up a shared registration system at the registry 
> level either.  
> 
> I see traditional brand tlds the same way and very real. Although no Brand 
> TLDs may have filed public comments, let me tell you we have talked to some 
> and this is a very real example (though I made up the olympic example).
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wed Apr 07 22:50:56 2010
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> We may be getting a little wrapped around the axle on this topic (this is 
> no-one's fault as it's complex) so I'd like to take a shot at summarizing 
> where it stands.   
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> Also, I agree with the argument Volker made yesterday.    I think we should 
> first see if we can find a rule-set that suits all types of registries.  This 
> may be possible.   If we find the overall rule-set doesn't suit a particular 
> registry-type then we can drill down on exception cases.
> 
> RT
> 
>