Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I support this exception but,  as you know, I believe the DAG registry contract 
already provides for SRSU needs via the list of registry reserved names.   
During the Brussels GNSO session on new TLDs Kurt Pritz confirmed that he saw 
no reason a registry could not reserve names for its own use via this 
mechanism.    

The only requirement then, should be clarification during contract negotiation 
that the list can be added to at any time the SRSU registry wishes.   Given 
this,  I propose the following sentence be added as a preface to any SRSU 
exception in our report:

        "If the Registry Operator is unable to negotiate a suitable amendment 
process to the registry list of reserved names the following cross ownership 
exception is recommended.......

RT



On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:52 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.
>    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
> 
>     2) TLD is non-transferrable (if the business dies, TLD is taken down in a 
> controlled fashion)
>     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
>     4) I could even live with normal fees attached to every name SRSU TLD 
> registers
> 
> 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
>     2) Normal VI rules would start to apply 
> 
> 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
>     2) Consumers could have tangible benefits with .brand TLDs.  
>         
> 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.
> 
> 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 
>