Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> ccTLD).
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>     [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Sébastien
>     Bachollet
>     *Sent:* Thursday, 01 July 2010 23:15
>     *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>     *Cc:* 'Roberto Gaetano'
>     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
>
>     I try to look at the ICANN glossary: gTLD
>
>     http://www.icann.org/en/general/glossary.htm#G
>
>     *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
>     the TLD.
>
>     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
>     your mail)
>
>     And we are talking about New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 4
>     Available for Public Comment
>
>     All the best
>
>     *Sébastien Bachollet*
>
>     *sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx* <mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>     *+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
>     use only)?
>
>     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?
>
>     Cheers,
>     Roberto