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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Per my May 19 post, i think it would be easy to negotiate a provision that 
allowed the Registry to add new names as required.

RT


On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> This requires the SR to know _in advance_, at the time of contracting, what 
> names to reserve. that is not a viable option for an ongoing registry service
> --MM
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Richard Tindal [richardtindal@xxxxxx]
> 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<mailto: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> 
> [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<mailto: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<mailto:tero.mustala@xxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<x-msg://285/jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 
>