Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Jeff,

I don't believe everyone is ok with SRSU. I'm not. I don't want to designate 
such a special entity, at least for the first round, for numerous reasons 
including all the issues that would need to be resolved first. Besides, the 
reserved name list provides a way for a .brand or .tm RO to safely get 90% or 
more of what they are looking for.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:34:20 
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

I also like the idea of exploring exceptions including the SRSU model as 
described below, but I have a more fundamental question on these exceptions.

Why is there no question or discussion on compliance abilities with regard to 
SRSU or other exceptions but arms start flying when other types of co-ownership 
are brought up?  When I look at the idea of a Registry being able to own a 
Registrar but not be able to sell the TLD it owns it is actually simple to 
monitor, since the Registrar and affiliates could not be accredited in that 
TLD. If it is not accredited it cannot register any names. With mandatory thick 
whois, the Registrar of record is displayed.  All very easy to monitor.
The SRSU model (which I said is worth exploring) has an incredible number of 
moving parts that need to be monitored and by many estimates there are expected 
to be over 200 .brand TLDs, yet the compliance issues and harms are not brought 
up.
What is it about .brand SRSU TLDs that make it easier to monitor and protect 
than another TLD that allows cross-ownership?


Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus



From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 11:21 AM
To: 'jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx'; roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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