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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, that's a question, first for Kurt et al, and then for Dan and
John, and then for the Board.

First, to Kurt, assuming someone could be found willing to risk the
fee and the authoring cost, is it their understanding of the
evaluation implementation that an application which asserts a "just to
itself" registration policy and no "open access to registrars" will
not fail for those reasons alone?

I'm trying to think through what the business plan evaluation could
consist of, if it has to return a "no visible means of support" or
"certain, under the facts submitted, to fail in 20xx, for lack of
income", and still pass the application. I'm not coming up with anything.

Second, to Dan and John, with the same assumption plus the assumption
that Kurt et al come back with a "it passes" response, is it their
understanding of the contract negotiations that they would contract
with such an applicant?

Of course, with arbitrary unilateral amendment in their toolkit they
may view the locus of their control post-contract rather than
pre-contract.

Third, to the Board, assuming the same and a "yes" answer from
corporate counsel, would they approve the delegation to the applicant?

This is a .post, willing to contract, but unwilling to accept
registrations, as long as it exists in the root, or a .pro, but with
the outcome known in advance rather than being a decade long series of
attempts to avoid deletion of a circa-2000 failure.

I can't even begin to predict what the Board will do, so anyone's
guess is as good as mine.

And I do think the issue is mischaracterized in the post below. If it
were correctly characterized the proper response to the section of the
CRAI report which proposed "single registrant" would have been "ho
hum, that's all ready in the model", and this discussion over in less
than five fiscal quarters.

Eric


On 4/7/10 10:50 PM, Richard Tindal wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>