Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tacit assumptions on SR?

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Tom,

Interesting question.   Let me take a shot at it.    

First, let's make sure we're in synch with definitions:

Single Registrant (SR)  TLD:     Means the registry is the registrant for every 
second level name.   I see two main types of SR.  The first I call Single 
Registrant Single User (SRSU).  An example might be eBay registering names 
where eBay Inc. controls all website/ email content for the names  (e.g.  
books.ebay, cars.ebay, careers.ebay, investors.ebay, whatsnewat.ebay).     The 
other type I call Single Registrant Multiple User (SRMU).  With SRMU eBay would 
still be the registrant,  but it would provide the names to other parties such 
as employees, members or users  (e.g. tombarrett.ebay).  

Para 2.6 of the DAG's registry contract allows a registry to register second 
level names only to itself -- and so it allows both SRSU and SRMU TLDs.  I'm 
not talking about HOW the registry would register the names.  Rather, I'm 
saying it permits SRs to exist  (we'll talk shortly about how the names can be 
registered).    As the registrant for all names the SR registry would, of 
course, assume rights and responsibilities for every name  (e.g. trademark 
infringement,  malicious activity).      

I've talked with a couple of dozen brands.  None plan to apply for a SRMU TLD.  
A couple plan to apply for a SRSU.   The brands I've talked with are reluctant 
to operate a SRMU due to liability issues, as well as the potential for 
dilution of their brand.   However,  this doesn't mean there aren't SRMUs out 
there.      

Vertical Integration:    This means the registry entity is also accredited as a 
registrar for the TLD.    The registry entity could either sign two contracts 
with ICANN (one for registry and one for registrar) or we could spend a few 
months work and try to merge the contracts into one (specifically for SRs).    
The current DAG does not permit the registry entity to sign a registrar 
contract.  This is not so much because of cross ownership constraints,  but 
because the way ICANN contractual relationships are structured it's cleaner to 
have one corporate entity as the registry and a separate corporate entity as 
the registrar.    


Now to the question at hand - what cross ownership and VI rules should we allow 
for SRs?
 
SRSU.   If you're an SRSU I don't think it matters.   You'd set a policy that 
says all names are to be registered to the registry.   Regardless of cross 
ownership rules you'd find an unaffiliated registrar to register the names (for 
a low mark-up per name) -- and you're in business.      For example,   if eBay 
wants a couple of thousand SRSU names registered in .EBAY they could do it 
through one of the hundreds of existing registrars.  The mark-up cost to ebay 
from using that registrar would be less than the cost of eBay setting up their 
own registrar.     I can think of only two reasons why the SRSU Registry might 
want to have its own registrar:  (1)  it intends to register a very large 
number of names (hundreds of thousands); or (2)  it wants to be the registrar 
of record for the names (but as most brands currently aren't the registrar for 
their existing names, e.g. ebay.com,  this is probably not a compelling reason).

SRMU.   As these names are provided to other parties (employees, members, 
customers, etc) they compete with other TLDs.  Given this, I think SRMU 
registries should operate under the same rules we decide for other TLDs - 
whatever those end up being.  To do otherwise would create an uneven playing 
field.   If SRMUs out-compete other types of TLDs, so be it.   It means they've 
better satisfied consumer needs - which is what the new TLD process is about.  


In summary:

A.   SRSU TLDs probably don't need their own registrar -  unless they plan to 
register a very large number of names;  and    

B.   I dont think we need a separate rule set for SRMU TLDs.   

Comments welcome.

RT




On Apr 17, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:

> > Aren't we forgetting something?...
>  
> The Single Registrant category of registries is pretty diverse and has been 
> back-burnered for now....right?
>  
> There is a lot of talk about whether vertical separation is a burden for 
> .mytinycommunity.  My sense is that there will be a lots of these but none 
> will ever come rival the size of .info or .biz.  Many will benefit from 
> outsourcing...
>  
> The elephants in the room aren't yet participating in this Working Group (at 
> least not directly..their unidentified consultants may be pretty active)... 
> These are .mybigbrand.
>  
> there are numerous possible .mybigbrand's that ALREADY manage namespaces much 
> bigger than all of .com's 75 million registrants.  I'm talking about 
> Microsoft (500 million Live users), Twitter (100 million users), Google (??? 
> millions), eBay(??? millions), Amazon (??? millions), Yahoo (??? millions), 
> Apple (??? millions)...
>  
> None of these private namespace elephants incur the cost of the ICANN 
> oversight today, including rights protection mechanisms, whois, data escrow, 
> registrar support, taxes..
>  
> Does any one want to discuss, or speculate, how these new elephantine 
> entrants will play on the same ICANN field without trampling everybody else?
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Tom
>  
> 
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 11:33 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tacit assumptions?
> 
> I am wondering whether we are not tacitly assuming things that are not 
> necessarily true. 
> I keep hearing that the new gTLDs, as small startups, will be in a very weak 
> commercial position and not be ableto influence the market.
> 
> This might well be true, as the examples given show for the past, but I 
> wonder whether we are not constraining our framework to the current situation 
> and making assumptions on the fance that the future will look like the past.
> 
> Let me give you an example. 
> The majority of the traffic in the list talks about the case of 
> .MyTinyCommunity, or .MyBigBrand. It might be well true that this will be the 
> vast majority of the proposed new gTLDs, but are we taking into account the 
> fact that the rules and policy have to be applied for *all* new gTLDs 
> equally? Aren't we forgetting something?
> 
> It might be because we have chosen conference call times that are 
> prohibitive, for instance, for members residing in East Asia, or also because 
> East Asian cultures are less assertive than Americans and Europeans, that 
> dominate this list, but do not people think that we have elephants in the 
> room like a possible .com in chinese characters? Wouldn't that TLD have 
> potentially huge registrations in fairly short time? Wouldn't that TLD be 
> operated in a completely different way than a niche TLD? Wouldn't the amount 
> of money on the table in that case be an incentive for "creative" behaviours 
> that might bend completely the rules and policies we want to establish, if 
> these rules are not strong enough and with enough safeguards?
> 
> I am under the impression that we tacitly think that IDNs will remain limited 
> to the "fast track", country-related IDN TLDs. This is not true. Or, at 
> least, not necessarily true.
> 
> Or am I missing something? 
> Cheers, 
> Roberto
>