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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Richard,

 

Please refer to the following hypothetical from the original MMA submission:

Research in Motion applies for a .RIM TLD. It is the intention of the
registry to provide every Blackberry device with a second level domain
corresponding to the Personal Identification Number (PIN) assigned to each
phone. Research in Motion proposes to register/maintain these domain names
directly in the registry database, and provide the end user and their mobile
service provider of choice an interface to use/configure the domain name.
Because these domain names are uniquely linked to each phone and these
domain names are non-transferable, Research in Motion sees no value/utility
in the use of ICANN accredited registrars.

There are millions of Blackberry devices and Research in Motion could not
reserve all the names, and requiring them to use a registrar makes little to
no sense in eco-system when handset manufacturer work very closely with the
carriers who control the customer relationship.  There is no consumer
protection or economic principle that anyone has been able to demonstrate to
me on how registrars promote competition or choice. 

 

If are we want to do is duplicate the name space with a bunch of .COM want
to be?s fine, adopt either the JN squared, RACK proposal ICANN Board
proposal. If you want to open the names space to true innovation and choice
with scalable enforcement mechanisms give CAM a read.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 8:20 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report

 

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 <x-msg://285/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:  <x-msg://285/jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx> jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx