RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question on IPC Proposal

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

(Replying this time to the list)
 
Thank you, Richard.
 
I want to confirm with my IPC colleagues that what I believe are the
answers are, in fact, the answers.  I will get back to the list soon.
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
        Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:11 AM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question on IPC Proposal
        
        
        
        
        Kristina,
        
        
        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 its TLD.  
        
        
        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);
        
        
        or
        
        
        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?
        
        
        Regards
        
        
        Richard