RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

Volker,

Indeed, I agree that the examples I made are not SRSUs, I only suggested
they are "pretty close" to it.
One of the ideas of the UPU was, in fact, to use the .post for a network of
the post offices worldwide. If we buy the position of the UPU that they are
the meta-organization of all post administrations, the distance is fairly
small, to my metrics.
However, the point is not whether .post or others are SRSUs, but what are
the conditions under which we can relax the requirement of equal access to
all registrars. Also, the examples are meant to stimulate the discussion.
So, regardless of whether .post or .museum are SRSU (or niche?), would this
type of application and this type of usage of the TLD deserve an exception,
or not? If yes, what are the characteristics of such TLDs to obtain an
exception? If not, what is the fear or the potential harm that justifies a
denial?

Cheers,
Roberto


> 
> 
> Hi Roberto,
> 
> I am afraid I have to disagree with your assessment.
> > Back to SRSU, I think that TLDs like .aero, .post, .museum, 
> are pretty 
> > close to this model. If my memory is not completely gone, .aero 
> > (originally .air) and .museum were part of the 2000 run, where no 
> > distinction was made yet between sTLDs and others, while .post was 
> > rejected in 2000, but had a second chance in the sTLD round.
> The TLDs mentioned are classical community TLDs, not SRSUs. 
> They have multiple registrants and multiple users all from a 
> strictly defined community. We do not have any SRSUs in 
> todays TLD world yet. They are the model most dotCorps will 
> want to use. But then the questions arise: 
> Is a dotEbay still SRSU? In all likelyhood, this will depend 
> on the proposed business model. Will powersellers have their 
> own domain? Then it is no longer SU. If it is used only for 
> categories (weirdstuff.ebay), then it will be SRSU. Or how 
> about a dotFacebook? Even if Facebook maintains the ownership 
> of username.facebook in name, the users will make up the 
> content. Similar for a dotBlog.Such TLDs are community TLDs, 
> but not SRSU.
> 
> > Funny, it brings me back to my old days of student and 
> researcher in 
> > Maths, when discussing non-euclidean geometries...;>) It will be 
> > interesting to see how we, culturally raised in an euclidean ASCII 
> > space, deal with riemannian IDN spaces.
> Hmmmm:
> /Iä,iä, Shub-Nigurrath,/ /Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh 
> wgah'nagl fhtagn.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> /
> >
> >     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >     *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Sébastien
> >     Bachollet
> >     *Sent:* Thursday, 01 July 2010 23:15
> >     *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     *Cc:* 'Roberto Gaetano'
> >     *Subject:* RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
> >
> >     I try to look at the ICANN glossary: gTLD
> >
> >     http://www.icann.org/en/general/glossary.htm#G
> >
> >     *gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain*
> >
> >     Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as
> >     "generic" TLDs, or "gTLDs". They can be subdivided into 
> two types,
> >     "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored TLDs (uTLDs), as
> >     described in more detail below.
> >
> >     In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (.com, .edu, .gov, .int, 
> .mil, .net, and
> >     .org) were created. Domain names may be registered in three of
> >     these (.com, .net, and .org) without restriction; the other four
> >     have limited purposes.
> >
> >     Over the next twelve years, various discussions occurred
> >     concerning additional gTLDs, leading to the selection 
> in November
> >     2000 of seven new TLDs for introduction. These were 
> introduced in
> >     2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs (.biz, .info, 
> .name, and .pro)
> >     are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop, and
> >     .museum) are sponsored.
> >
> >     Generally speaking, an unsponsored TLD operates under policies
> >     established by the global Internet community directly 
> through the
> >     ICANN process, while a sponsored TLD is a specialized 
> TLD that has
> >     a sponsor representing the narrower community that is most
> >     affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus carries out delegated
> >     policy-formulation responsibilities over many matters concerning
> >     the TLD.
> >
> >     A Sponsor is an organization to which is delegated some defined
> >     ongoing policy-formulation authority regarding the 
> manner in which
> >     a particular sponsored TLD is operated. The sponsored TLD has a
> >     Charter, which defines the purpose for which the 
> sponsored TLD has
> >     been created and will be operated. The Sponsor is 
> responsible for
> >     developing policies on the delegated topics so that the TLD is
> >     operated for the benefit of a defined group of 
> stakeholders, known
> >     as the Sponsored TLD Community, that are most directly 
> interested
> >     in the operation of the TLD. The Sponsor also is responsible for
> >     selecting the registry operator and to varying degrees for
> >     establishing the roles played by registrars and their 
> relationship
> >     with the registry operator. The Sponsor must exercise its
> >     delegated authority according to fairness standards and in a
> >     manner that is representative of the Sponsored TLD Community.
> >
> >     Is SRSU fall into that definition?
> >
> >     For my point of view a gTLD must be open to users/customers.
> >
> >     A closed TLD is not a gTLD (and I see that you didn?t use g in
> >     your mail)
> >
> >     And we are talking about New gTLD Draft Applicant 
> Guidebook, Version 4
> >     Available for Public Comment
> >
> >     All the best
> >
> >     *Sébastien Bachollet*
> >
> >     *sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx* <mailto:sebastien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >     *+33 6 07 66 89 33*
> >
> >     *De :* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *De la part de* 
> Roberto Gaetano
> >     *Envoyé :* jeudi 1 juillet 2010 20:40
> >     *À :* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >     *Objet :* [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
> >
> >     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
> >
>