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

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

Oops, apologies Tim, I did not have the full background to your statement. Due 
to the sheer amount of email threads coming out of this group, it is easy to 
miss parts of a discussion sometimes.

Thanks for clarifying and correcting my mistaken assumption about your 
statement.

Stéphane

Le 9 juin 2010 à 21:26, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> Apples and oranges, Stephane. Mike made the comment:
> 
>> There is no consumer protection or economic principle 
>> that anyone has been able to demonstrate to me on how 
>> registrars promote competition or choice.
> 
> I was simply replying to that with an example of how
> the registrar model has promoted competition and choice.
> 
> That is not an argument for or against VI/CO. And as I 
> have said many times, I am not against VI/CO. I am
> against jumping into it in an adhoc rush to appease 
> various business plans.
> 
> IMO, we either need to put a hold on the rollout until
> these issues can be fully considered and the issues
> resolved, or take a conservative approach to get the 
> ball rolling and continue working with the goal of
> implementing any changes in future rounds. I prefer
> the latter, but would support either approach.
> 
> Tim 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels
> report
> From: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, June 09, 2010 2:03 pm
> To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: gnso-vi-feb10@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
>> 
>> 
>