[gnso-vi-feb10] Question on IPC Proposal
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question on IPC Proposal
- From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 22:11:20 -0700
Thanks for the detailed and well articulated presentation yesterday (I've come
to expect no less).
I agree with you that nothing in the draft registry contract prevents a TLD
operating under the Single Registrant model (i.e. the registry is registrant
for all second level names). What we are discussing, as you explained, are
circumstances where that registry might need to control the sole registrar in
Based on the interactions I've had with potential brand applicants, Model 1 in
the IPC paper (Branded Single Registrant, Single User) is the most commonly
envisioned approach. I'm wondering why the IPC feels the need for special
cross ownership/ equal access provisions for Model 1, as I think the current
contract provides for it.
Having first set a policy that the brand owner will be the only registrant for
second level names, I think the registry has two options to achieve its goal
(under the current contract):
1. It could negotiate with ICANN to have the required names included in the
schedule of "second level reservations for registry operations" (agreement
could also be reached that additional names might be added in the future);
2. It could make its names available to any interested registrar (noting
that the registry policy only allows the sale of those names to the brand
owner) and negotiate the registration of its required names through whichever
registrar(s) it choses. I expect the registrar mark-up on those names
would be in the order of a few cents per name.
I think either of these approaches would work for the brand SRSU. Is there
a reason why you believe such a registry needs to control a registrar?