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

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff, I see your point but let me ask one question here:

What is the operative disadvantage of maintaining the 
registry-registrar-system even in such cases? The same goals could 
easily be accomplished by using the registry-registrar-registrant model 
the following way:
The IOC applies for .olympic, and limits the ability to register certain 
domain names domain names to NOCs, organizing cities and the official 
sponsors only, while at the same time reserving other  domains for their 
own use in their policy, just as any registry does today. The list of 
reserved domain names would of course be longer. The delegated domains 
are registered by applicable registrants through their registrar of 
choice while the reserved domain names must be used by the IOC directly.
The only change would be that the NOCs would be the actual registrants 
of the delagated domains, not the IOC. The IOC would retain the right to 
vet any application; domains would only be activated after such approval 
is granted by the registry. A similar model has just been imposed in 
.CN. I think .museum operates a similar system as well. While it makes 
registrations more complicated and increases registry control, this 
effect would be desirable to the registry owner of a .brand or .ngo.
There is no actual need to eliminate the registrar in such a model as 
the same goals can be reached with the current system.
Now the second question that arises in this scenario is of course if the 
registry should be allowed to operated a registrar of its own. I would 
think that many registrars would be hesitant to even consider 
implementing .olympic into their system even if given equal opportunity 
to do so due to the low number of total registrations to be expected 
compared to the cost of implementation and maintaining registry 
relations. This ties in directly with one of the earlier suggestions in 
the discussions of VI and CO, where VI and CO would be permitted, under 
the condition that the VI/CO-registrar be limited in the number of 
domains it may register in total.
Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

Key-Systems GmbH


> 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
>
>
>
>