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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

I understand what you're saying.  

My comments on this thread (starting from the May 19 post) have always been 
about Scenario 1 in the IPC paper (a corporation that uses a relatively limited 
number of second level names for their own, corporate websites).     This is 
the only scenario I know  where actual applicants are waiting now -  but I 
recognize silent applicants may be out there.   

I agree it doesn't solve the RIM-type scenario you described below.  Some 
comments on that scenario:

a.   RIM could do this tomorrow using third level names with no cross-ownership 
restraints,  no use of registrars and no icann fees

b.   If we want RIM to be able to do it at the second level, via a TLD,  we 
will have to think through whether we want Verisign (say) doing it in .COM or 
me (say) doing it in .WEB.  I think it will be complex to define rules about 
that.  The IPC Paper takes a stab at one dimension of the issue,  namely  -- 
'what is a brand?' --  but I think there will be a lot of debate before rules 
are settled on that. 

d.   I agree with Tim R that we don't have the time, resources or knowledge to 
solve for every scenario in this first round.  

Richard



and agree the RIM example would not be well served.
On Jun 9, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
>