RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Agree that, for SRSU, registry is only registrant and second level names
can't be sold.  If registry wishes to assign third-level names, it
should be able to do so.  Don't necessarily agree with limit on number
of names - depends on the number.  Fine with fees paid to ICANN for
second-level names.  Agree that TLD should be non-transferable.
However, ICANN continues to reserve to itself the discretion to
re-delegate all TLDs (notwithstanding the numerous objections raised in
public comments by trademark owners, et al.)
 
Agree about ramifications of SRSU failure to comply.
 
For convenience, I list below the additional requirements the IPC
proposed:
 
(a) The trademark to which the .brand is an identical match must be the
subject of trademark registrations of national effect in at least three
countries in each of at least three of the five ICANN regions.

(b) For first-round applicants, the registrations of national effect
referenced in (a) above must have issued on before June 27, 2008. 

(c)  The .brand exemption is inapplicable to trademark owners whose
principal business is the operation of a domain name registry, domain
name registrar, or domain name reseller.  

(d)  The relationship between the .brand  TLD and its
customer/Registered Name Holder is defined by terms of service that
encompasses a registration agreement and governs content, the bundling
of services or the purchase of a product; membership in an organization
or cooperative; maintenance of the terms of a contract, trademark
license; or an appropriate combination of these factors.

(e) Second-level .brand domain name registrations in models 2 and 3 are
held in trust by the TLD operator and are not delegated to a third-party
user

(f)  Second-level .brand domain name registrations in model 3 are
delegated to the user, but under the quality control provisions of a
trademark license agreement that allows the registry to terminate the
registration at will

(g) Mixed-use gTLDs, where some names are held by the registry and other
names registered to external parties are not exempt from CO/VI
regulations.

 

 

________________________________

        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