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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard, can you redraw your scenario and show where the Internet user gets a 
benefit? That's the crux of the matter; not which names a registrar may or may 
not sell or which data is allowed to  transfer cleanly between internal 
companies (from a registy to its own registrar) which will undoubtedly 
/potentially serve to allow incumbents to manipulate the market, wnich many say 
is the currentl problem.

The second point I'll make is in response  to your statement (below). 
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. 

it is also suggested  these SRs would be provisioning.domain names in 
predominantly the 2nd level. Exactly what iCANN does not want to see. 

So who gets what benefit here? 

That's the issue for me

RA 
!


________________________________________
Ron Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.rnapartners.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 17:25:28 
To: Avri Doria<avri@xxxxxxx>; <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs


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.
> 
>