RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Niche TLDs

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Me, too

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 4:35 PM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Niche TLDs

Hi Roberto-

I like that you're working to synthesize many of the talking points from 
meetings and hallway conversations from Brussels towards resolution of these 
points so that SRSU and 'Niche' TLDs do not lose momentum.


On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Roberto Gaetano 
<roberto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

The theme is the following:
Under which circumstances would people feel safe in allowing vertical 
integration for a TLD that serves a small community, like a cultural, 
linguistic, geographic community?

Let me start.

 *   There should be declared criteria to delimit the community, and adherence 
to these criteria will be audited by ICANN
 I agree with this

 *   The registry will be operated as a non profit for the benefit of the 
community.
 Though there is a perceived benefit to this, the company structure being a 
Non-Profit isn't always the best for the benefit of the community.  I have seen 
for-profit companies benefit the community.   People

 *   There is a maximum number of SLDs, passed which the registry loses its 
"niche" status..
 As you state below, how do you set this? is it simply self-identified in the 
application or is it a static number that applies to all new TLDs, or other?

The point is that if a registry does fulfill these requirements, they will be 
granted an exception, and will be allowed to operate without giving equal 
access to all registrars.

There might be interesting questions, like:

 *   Will they be allowed to use the services of one registrar, selected by 
them, or not?
 *   What is the maximum number opf names under the TLD?


I think that the niche TLDs are important to have some access to the registrant 
pool vis a vis registrars.  If forced to use registrars, a rule of 'Not in your 
own TLD' would severely inhibit access to the public and registrant pool.    
This might be being referred to as 'orphaned' TLDs.

For Niche TLDs (and for that matter this have a wider application to other 
types) I can think of the following circumstances where 'NOT IN YOUR OWN TLD' 
is a really bad outcome.

For any of the following reasons (and perhaps more) we could end up with a 
landlock

TLD has limited commercial attraction and is not adopted by registrars
   A TLD that has low attraction may be skipped over by other registrars (ie 
.homelysite)
TLD not adopted for competitive reasons by other registrars (remember, 
adoption/integration is NOT mandatory)
   This was witnessed in the .ME launch to a limited extent, where some 
registrars opted not to integrate because they thought (correct or incorrect) 
that they were putting a coin in a competitors procket.
TLD has difficult business rules or policies and are bypassed by registrars.
   Faced with an abundance of TLDs to integrate, these TLDs would potentially 
be skipped over for those simpler ones to integrate.
TLD holds linguistic or cultural attraction to a group but a compatible 
registrar (language, region, etc) other than the operator may not exist.

I can come up with more examples, but I hope that I make a good case for 'NOT 
IN YOUR OWN TLD' = bad


-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax