RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with almost all of what Jarkko says here about SRSU. Only thing I would 
disagree with his any suggestion that there should be a per-name "tax" or "fee" 
paid by a SRSU registry. That would be completely unjustifiable.
--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:53 AM
To: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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