RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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

Contract negotiation?  Staff have repeatedly said that there would be no
individual contract negotiation.  
 
Aside from that, many IPC members have expressed concern about the
potential for abuse of that clause.  Having a clearly and strictly
defined SRSU (and SRMU, under limited circumstances) exception
accomplishes the necessary goals while decreasing the potential for
abuse.   For example, the IPC identified the goals/benefits as:
 
-          global trade and trust by adapting to various business models
of trademark holders

-          guards consumers from potential harm through the reduction of
phishing and fraud

-          protects and honors intellectual property that conforms to
international standards while not expanding any intellectual property
right beyond that granted by the national governments issuing such
rights

-          encourages innovation within the new gTLD namespace 

-          allows rights holders (for profit and non-profit) to provide
maximum value and choice to their customers and constituencies while
maintaining strict quality control standards applicable to maintaining
trademarks 

-          facilitates a cost effective and low-priced domain name
alternative

-          eliminates gaming through geographic and time restrictions on
qualifying trademarks

-          permits trademark owners to reap the benefits of .brand TLDs 

 
 

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
        Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:54 AM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
        
        
        I support this exception but,  as you know, I believe the DAG
registry contract already provides for SRSU needs via the list of
registry reserved names.   During the Brussels GNSO session on new TLDs
Kurt Pritz confirmed that he saw no reason a registry could not reserve
names for its own use via this mechanism.     

        The only requirement then, should be clarification during
contract negotiation that the list can be added to at any time the SRSU
registry wishes.   Given this,  I propose the following sentence be
added as a preface to any SRSU exception in our report: 

        "If the Registry Operator is unable to negotiate a suitable
amendment process to the registry list of reserved names the following
cross ownership exception is recommended.......

        RT



        On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:52 AM, jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


                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 <x-msg://266/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