RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- To: <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:17:01 -0400
Content controlled by the registry? That will be a function of the
IPC's suggested conditions.
Content created by the registry? Disagree.
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann -
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:31 AM
To: Roberto Gaetano
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
I agree with your points, but would add another couple of points I think
of as important:
- a name cannot be made available for use by another beneficiary (no
dotFacebook as SRSU), i.e. the content is fully controlled by the
- a narrowly defined legal entity as registry, i.e. no clubs, membership
organizations (this should be phrased to exclude all pseudo-SRSU
We need to make sure that equal and exclusive access of registras shall
not be circumventable by SRSU registries that are too widely defined.
> 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)?
> * 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?
I will go with a "Yes" in this regard, but would tend to replace
"allowed" by "required".