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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> as registries currently reserve operational names

Right. The Reserved Names WG specifically chose not to address those
type of names in its work and recommendations because they were unique
to each Registry Operator and established during contract talks between
ICANN and the Registry Operator.

So I don't think it is significant that section 4 of Specification 5 of
the new registry agreement (in DAGv4) does not go into detail on that
since any names included would be unique to each agreement and possibly
some Registry Operators would not ask or want any such reservations. In
fact, 2.6 of the new registry agreement specifically carves out "Second
Level Reservations for Registry Operations from Specification 5" from
having to be registered through an ICANN accredited registrar.

So I can see section 4 of Specification 5 in some new registry
agreements including a 4.1 for second-level names reserved for Registry
Operator use and to stay with the Registry Operator in the event they
are longer designated the Registry Operator for that TLD.

But this is probably something it would be good to clarify with Staff to
be certain.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels
report
From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 7:20 am
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx

Jarkko/ Tero,

One of the options in my May 19 posting involves no cost or complexity. 
The desired names would simply be added to the registry contract
Schedule of Reserved Names.


If ICANN staff said that option was not permitted  (note:  I do not know
why they would say that -- as registries currently reserve operational
names)  then the incremental cost of registering 1,000 (say) names
through an unaffiliated registrar would be in the order of a few hundred
dollars per year.      


It is true this would mean reviewing the registrar's agreement --- but
your lawyers will spend at least that much time reviewing RAA provisions
if you become your own registrar.    Plus, there are additional costs
operating as your own registrar.


Overall, it seems you'll have more cost going down the path you want.


I welcome push back on this --  but I'm not seeing a cost-based reason
for the exception you want.


RT






On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:31 AM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Richard,
 
I fully agree with you that most of the things Single Registrant TLDs
would want to do could be addressed as you described.
At the same time I agree with Tero that this would add unnecessary
complexity and cost. Either in the form of making more complicated
contract with ICANN or making the contract with possible registrars. And
for me it still doesn’t make any sense that registry would have to
sell names to registrar just buy them back with extra cost.
 
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



 
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Mustala, Tero
(NSN - FI/Espoo)
Sent: 8. kesäkuuta 2010 14:15
To: ext Richard Tindal; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels
report


 
Hi Richard,

 

the requirement to use a separate registrar. As the number of 2nd level
names in a typical SRSU case is small, this is also no real business
opportunity to any registrar. It just adds costs to everybody.

 

regards

 

Tero

 

Tero Mustala 
Principal Consultant, 
CTO/Industry Environment 
Nokia Siemens Networks 
tero.mustala@xxxxxxx

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ext Richard Tindal
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 12:46 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels
report
Hi Jarkko,
 

Further to this post --- 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01584.html

 

What is it that SR Registries might want to do that isn't adequately
addressed by the current DAG contract?

 

Richard

 

 

 

 
On Jun 7, 2010, at 4:20 PM, 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