Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/2/10 3:52 AM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have always been a supporter of the SRSU model in its simplest form
> and I still find it very easy to define.
>
> *With the risk of repeating myself all over again I offer you my view
> of the circumstances.
Restatement is always useful.

> * 1) No name selling to third parties, registry is the only registrant
> and controls the names completely.
>
> *Example:* To replace brand.com with .brand TLD
This situation already exists in many large corporate intranets, the 
private corporate name space ".corportion-XYZ" exists, frequently 
using private addressing provided through RFC 1918, though some use 
publicly routed, usually provider independent address allocations.
The no-third-parties-controls-the-name-completely model already 
exists, in corporate intranets. What we're discussing then is 
"leaking" private name spaces, and their mappings to private resources 
on non-globally routed private addresses, into the public name space 
to public resources on globally routed public addresses.
> 2) TLD is non-transferrable (if the business dies, TLD is taken down
> in a controlled fashion)
The merger, acquisition and divestiture cases, while not "business 
dies", are real problems to address. In the addressing world these 
cause renumbering, a major pain for the corporate networking staff. In 
the public DNS these events would require at least as much public 
management as changes of iso3166 allocations, such as the changes of 
the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslavia allocations or the 
change of name of Burma to Myanmar.
> 3) There could be a limit to number of names if that makes it more
> acceptable to some, but my sense is that it doesn’t really matter as
> the names are private anyway
It does matter to registry operators that the reserved names list, 
their only tool other than their registration criteria to affect the 
content of the zone they publish, is finite.
> 4) I could even live with normal fees attached to every name SRSU TLD
> registers
Of course, this is a nuisance cost. See below.

> *If an SRSU TLD fails to comply with any of the above:
> * 1) An amendment to registry agreement would have to be negotiated
> with ICANN
Willful breech of contract results in renegotiation so that the breech 
falls within the contract? There has to be a better tool to ensure 
efficient breech lacks incentive.
> 2) Normal VI rules would start to apply
Umm. I see a problem.

Having gotten into the root, having launched competitively with all 
registries, bought a Super Bowl ad or lots of glossy pages in 
magazines to ensure mindshare, the corporate planner may convert this 
brand marketing property into a direct sales channel, and when ICANN 
compliance catches up (which may be a very long time, see .travel), 
the corporate property has to adopt the costs it has avoided up to 
this point and, with all this initial advantage, now compete with 
public facing registry propositions.
For a mass market corporation with millions of CRM relations, the 
conversion from an empty "brand" registry to a very large 
"subscription" registry appears to be likely, given the lack of 
compliance and disincentive for intentional breech.
> *For those of you that think that closed TLDs won’t promote open
> innovation in internet I have a couple of positive implications.
> * 1) Full Vertical integration doesn’t risk consumer protection
> because no names are sold
The parties which have opposed all new gTLDs (I was just looking at 
http://www.cadna.org/ yesterday afternoon) have been pretty good at 
ensuring the benefit that there is no risk of consumer protection 
because no names are sold.
Restated, doing nothing also achieves this benefit.

> 2) Consumers could have tangible benefits with .brand TLDs.
Things consumers could have tangible benefits from is rather vague.

At this point consumers could have tangible benefits from using 
alternate roots or using keywords or paper mail and printed catalogs 
of glossy pictures of artfully designed websites while waiting for the 
next new gTLD round.
These are outside the scope of the VI PDP WG, as is the claim of 
consumer benefit from private name spaces. Our charter is the risk and 
benefit of vertically integrating the market in which consumers may, 
with no restrictions other than those sought by sponsored registries 
(.aero, .coop, .museum and .cat) and community-based applications 
prospectively, and later enforced (hand wave at ICANN compliance) in 
the registry contract.
A better claim for public benefit than "could have tangible benfits" 
should be offered.
> *Example:* a brand could educate that all their legimite web pages end
> with .brand. This would work extremely well with an entity like Red
> Cross, which is struggling with all the scam donation sites every time
> there’s a major catastrophy. Internet users would know that it is
> genuine Red Cross site, if the name ends with .redcross.
Part of the ICRC uses "redcross.org", so I'll use .org here. The .org 
zone is now signed. The root will be signed before anything the VI PDP 
WG does is reflected in changes to the root.
Why is an unsigned ".charity" a better public policy choice than a 
signed "charity.org"?
Would the same security claim mean an unsigned ".bank" is a better 
public policy choice than a signed "bank.tld", where "tld" is a signed 
zone?
Since this organization is offered as an example of a "single user", 
here is a portion of para 2 of section 7.1 of the ByLaws of the ARC:
"Membership is open to all people of the United States and its
territories and its possessions.  Any individual shall be a member of 
the Corporation if he or she (a) makes a monetary contribution to the 
Corporation, including a monetary contribution made directly to a 
Chartered Unit, (b) performs volunteer services for the Corporation, 
including volunteer services performed directly for a Chartered Unit, 
or (c) donates blood to the Corporation."
It appears to me that to use "redcross" as a "single user", all of the 
8 pages of regional chapters (chartered units) of the American Red 
Cross, and all of the members of the American Red Cross would have to 
use another registry, perhaps the existing .org registry, and the 
domain "redcross.org".
Meanwhile, charities are using phones, which are more secure than URL 
redirect payloads in disaster-spam to address the loss control problem.
Personally, I prefer to distinguish the goals of for-profit applicants 
from the necessity and compassion claims of non-profits.
Eric

> BR,
>
> -jr
>
>
> On 1.7.2010 21.39, "ext Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>     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