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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I'm saying that for scenario 1 in the IPC Paper the DAG 4 is already at Point B.

This approach (using the schedule of registry reserved names)  doesn't require 
a registrar -- so there's no cost or inconvenience to the registry.

Richard 



On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>