RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with you, Jarkko. As the CAM proposal defines SR TLDs, the name is 
non-transferable and thus one of the main reasons for having registrars 
disappears anyway. 

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of frederick felman [ffelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:17 PM
To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report

Yes, agreed. +1

On 6/7/10 7:20 AM, "jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx" <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear all,

It is my observation that recently we haven’t really spent much time on the 
Single Registrant TLDs. However, according to previous discussion (and also 
according to the newest proposal matrix)  it is evident that Single Registrant 
TLDs could be vertically integrated and should not need to use registrars. The 
exact conditions to that need a bit of fine-tuning but are essentially 
available in the current proposals.

My understanding is that this is something almost everyone agrees on and should 
therefore be noted in our Brussels report. I would even go a step further and 
suggest that this is something we have a consensus on and it should be part of 
our recommendation to be included in the final Applicant Guidebook.

I also want to point out that Single Registrant TLDs should be noted as an 
exception regardless whether we reach a consensus about the cross-ownership in 
general.

Thanks,

-jr

JARKKO RUUSKA
Head of Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration,  Tampere, Finland
Nokia Corporation
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx <jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>