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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I and other advocates of SR exceptions are pointing out that you can get from 
point A directly to point B. You are pointing out that you can also get to 
point A by going through D, C, G, S, T, Z and then A. 
Sure, lawyers and staff can wind themselves into pretzels in order to do that. 
But...

What is the point of this? Your position seems to be entirely driven by an 
attempt to retain the traditional role for registrars, regardless of how 
costly, inconvenient and uncommon-sensical activity is required to do so. 

--MM
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Richard Tindal [richardtindal@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report

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>
>
>
>
>