Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:30:03 -0400
On 7/1/10 6:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
My personal opinion is that sTLDs are indeed a subset of gTLDs,
because historically the distinction has been only between ccTLDs
(based on ISO-3166) and gTLDs (everything else).
Things might well change in the future, also for the dilemma of how to
characterize non-ASCII-TLDs. The point is not trivial, as there is no
equivalent of the ISO-3166 table for IDNs.
Back to SRSU, I think that TLDs like .aero, .post, .museum, are pretty
close to this model. If my memory is not completely gone, .aero
(originally .air) and .museum were part of the 2000 run, where no
distinction was made yet between sTLDs and others
Your memory on this point is in error.
, while .post was
rejected in 2000, but had a second chance in the sTLD round.
So, you are right, I prefer in this case to talk about "TLD" and not
"gTLD", but if forced to qualify my statement, I go for SRSU being
within the gTLD family (as the only other family in the ASCII world is
And, of course, the rest of the world is coming soon to ruin the
perfect mathematical model we have created, as for IDNs this
distinction might be blurred to say the least.
Incidentally, let me play again that broken record that sounds like
the rules we are proposing have to work in the non-ASCII world as well.
Funny, it brings me back to my old days of student and researcher in
Maths, when discussing non-euclidean geometries...;>)
It will be interesting to see how we, culturally raised in an
euclidean ASCII space, deal with riemannian IDN spaces.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Sébastien
*Sent:* Thursday, 01 July 2010 23:15
*Cc:* 'Roberto Gaetano'
*Subject:* RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
I try to look at the ICANN glossary: gTLD
*gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain*
Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as
"generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into two types,
"sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as
described in more detail below.
In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and
.org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of
these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four
have limited purposes.
Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred
concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November
2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were introduced in
2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, .name, and .pro)
are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and
.museum) are sponsored.
Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies
established by the global Internet community directly through the
ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized TLD that has
a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most
affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated
policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning
A Sponsor is an organization to which is delegated some defined
ongoing policy-formulation authority regarding the manner in which
a particular sponsored TLD is operated. The sponsored TLD has a
Charter, which defines the purpose for which the sponsored TLD has
been created and will be operated. The Sponsor is responsible for
developing policies on the delegated topics so that the TLD is
operated for the benefit of a defined group of stakeholders, known
as the Sponsored TLD Community, that are most directly interested
in the operation of the TLD. The Sponsor also is responsible for
selecting the registry operator and to varying degrees for
establishing the roles played by registrars and their relationship
with the registry operator. The Sponsor must exercise its
delegated authority according to fairness standards and in a
manner that is representative of the Sponsored TLD Community.
Is SRSU fall into that definition?
For my point of view a gTLD must be open to users/customers.
A closed TLD is not a gTLD (and I see that you didn’t use g in
And we are talking about New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4
Available for Public Comment
All the best
*+33 6 07 66 89 33*
*De :* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *De la part de* Roberto Gaetano
*Envoyé :* jeudi 1 juillet 2010 20:40
*À :* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
*Objet :* [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
The theme is the following:
Under which circumstances would people feel safe in allowing
vertical integration for a TLD that has a single registry and a
single user (the typical case being a "brand" TLD, for internal
Let me start.
* There should not be "sales" of SLDs, the names under the TLD
are distributed internally based on declared criteria.
* There is no "secondary market", i.e. a name cannot be
"passed" to another beneficiary. Actually, the name remains
always under full control of the registry.
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?