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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Fear that a registry/registrar may save the most valuable domain names for 
itself?  Heck, Elliot Noss stood up in the Seoul meeting and said that a 
registry that doesn't skim thousands or tens of thousands of names for itself 
will go broke.  That sounds more like a promise than fear to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 6:47 AM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Stéphane_Van_Gelder; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Single Registrant TLDs in VIWG Brussels report


Hi Tim,

> 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.
>   
If it were only to appease business plans, I would tend to agree with you. 
However, so far, the strict limitation proposals seem more like 
smoke-and-mirrors to appease the ICANN board without addressing any actual 
problems. I am afraid that the strict 15% limit on CO will effectively do the 
opposite of its intent, i.e. open the door to gaming, limiting competition.

I think there may be a cultural difference in play: While many Europeans 
believe in the power of a regulated free market, many Americans have recently 
experienced the dangers of an unregulated free market.

> 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.
>   
I appreciate your cautious approach, but think that by that time the damage 
will be done. Just as I I have repeatedly heard some members voice the fear 
that a registry/registrar may save the most valuable domain names for itself, I 
expect the most interesting TLDs to be delegated in the first round. 
Effectively, I think this means that I would rather delay the rollout to allow 
us to design the system I suggested previously than go and agree on a proposal 
that is the lowest common denominator and restricts competition.

Volker

> 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
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>   


-- 
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht 
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
DE-66482 Zweibruecken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.