RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Presenting a .brand SRSU TLD as a "leakage" of a private name space into the 
public internet is a desperate rhetorical ploy that, I assume, all of us can 
see through. If not, let me know and I will address it; otherwise nothing 
further needs to be said about it.

Raising the spectre of mergers and acquisitions is also a phony argument. A 
.brand TLD is an asset that can be transferred like anything else. To compare 
ip address renumbering to the transfer of the registrant of a domain name is 
ludicrous. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:15 AM
> To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> 
>