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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Ron,

Can you clarify what you're asking.

Are you asking how registrants benefit from Single Registrant TLDs in general?  
 Or are you asking if they benefit more from the SR registry owning its own 
registrar (versus the registry buying from an unaffiliated registrar)?

On your second point,  I don't think ICANN, or anyone I'm aware of, is seeking 
to prevent registries registering their own names at the second level.  The DAG 
has always allowed for that.

RT


On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:14 PM, Ron Andruff wrote:

> 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.
>> 
>> 
>