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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Prior to the separation of the ry/rr functions domain name registration
was $35/yr with a minimum two years required up front (probably higher
before that, I don't recall). Within less than 2 years after, you could
register domains at several registrars for less than $20/yr and as low
as $8.95, nearly 75% cheaper. And that was before the introduction of
any new gTLDs.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels
report
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 12:46 pm
To: "'Richard Tindal'" <richardtindal@xxxxxx>,
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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





 

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