Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

*
**From my perspective, I think creating an exception that says a registrar
can control a registry as long as the registrar doesn't sell the TLD can be
gamed in so many ways it's effectively the same as saying 100% cross
ownership.   *
**
*I think supporting this exception is actually endorsing the 100% approach
---  which is anyone’s prerogative --- but I think making a "not in the
registry's TLD" exception is a distinction without a difference when
compared to 100% cross ownership.*

*It's not just a matter of trying to identify and monitor all the varied
registrar and reseller operations owned by the registrar's parent company.
There are also myriad of cross-marketing, bundling and promotional methods
by which the affiliated registrar can circumvent the safeguard.     *

*I believe this to be part of the reason why existing contracts limit cross
ownership of registries and registrars to 15% -- regardless of the TLDs they
offer.   Or at least that it has some predictable edges that are well known.
*

*If one is to believe such registrar actions can be controlled, which I
don't,  it creates another problem in that it limits access to a TLD for the
public at large.   I'm not sure it's in our competitive interest to limit
the distribution available to a new TLD.  *

*A TLD that can potentially compete with .COM should be available to every
registrar to sell.  I believe we'd have failed as a group if we produced a
rule that resulted that a TLD Registry shouldn't be owned by a registrar,
who then cannot sell it to the public (unless the registry and registrar
have separate policy making/control in place).   *

*If I were the .COM operator, I'd embrace a rule that said GoDaddy, for
example (but any registrar for that matter) could own the .WEB registry but
not directly retail .WEB names.  I would view such a restriction as a great
way to competitively restrain the success of .WEB versus .COM and a good
'chess move'.*

*"Not in your own TLD" is a really bad idea.*

*
*

*-Jothan*

*
*

**
*


**Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax*

*
*
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>