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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think you're making a fair point Tim. If we follow your logic, then the 
status quo should also have extended to first two rounds of new gTLDs, i.e. 
they shouldn't have happened. As you are taking a time when Netsol was sole 
supplier/distributor for .COM domains, why not also use as base a time when 
there weren't any .BIZ, .INFOs, etc.

My point is the market has moved on a lot since then and trying to apply 
pre-1998 rules to the current market or situation doesn't seem to make sense.

I don't think GoDaddy has a problem with there being no separation between 
ry/rr functions for .ME for example...

Stéphane

Le 9 juin 2010 à 20:24, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 
> 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
> 
>