RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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

Milton's post makes me realize I need to clarify an earlier message:
The .brand TLD is certainly an asset that can be transferred. As a
practical matter, though, it won't be transferred in a vacuum -- other
assets of the business will be transferred.  Any .brand operator that
seeks to transfer the 
TLD - in and of itself without any other assets - runs the risk of
damaging the brand.  In addition, a trademark owner must exercise
control over not only the goods and services it identifies with the
mark, but also third-party use of the mark.  A trademark owner who does
not control third-party use of its mark risks damaging the mark.
Depending on the significance of that lack of control, one instance can
damage the mark irrevocably.  This is the incentive for the trademark
owner .brand operator to exercise control over the registration and use
of second level names.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:26 PM
To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU


Presenting a .brand SRSU TLD as a "leakage" of a private name space into
the public internet is a desperate rhetorical ploy that, I assume, all
of us can see through. If not, let me know and I will address it;
otherwise nothing further needs to be said about it.

Raising the spectre of mergers and acquisitions is also a phony
argument. A .brand TLD is an asset that can be transferred like anything
else. To compare ip address renumbering to the transfer of the
registrant of a domain name is ludicrous. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi- 
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 6:15 AM
> To: jarkko.ruuska@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: roberto@xxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
> 
> 
> On 7/2/10 3:52 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.
> 
> Restatement is always useful.
> 
> > * 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
> 
> This situation already exists in many large corporate intranets, the 
> private corporate name space ".corportion-XYZ" exists, frequently 
> using private addressing provided through RFC 1918, though some use 
> publicly routed, usually provider independent address allocations.
> 
> The no-third-parties-controls-the-name-completely model already 
> exists, in corporate intranets. What we're discussing then is 
> "leaking" private name spaces, and their mappings to private resources

> on non-globally routed private addresses, into the public name space 
> to public resources on globally routed public addresses.
> 
> > 2) TLD is non-transferrable (if the business dies, TLD is taken down

> > in a controlled fashion)
> 
> The merger, acquisition and divestiture cases, while not "business 
> dies", are real problems to address. In the addressing world these 
> cause renumbering, a major pain for the corporate networking staff. In

> the public DNS these events would require at least as much public 
> management as changes of iso3166 allocations, such as the changes of 
> the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslavia allocations or the 
> change of name of Burma to Myanmar.
> 
> > 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
> 
> It does matter to registry operators that the reserved names list, 
> their only tool other than their registration criteria to affect the 
> content of the zone they publish, is finite.
> 
> > 4) I could even live with normal fees attached to every name SRSU 
> > TLD registers
> 
> Of course, this is a nuisance cost. See below.
> 
> > *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
> 
> Willful breech of contract results in renegotiation so that the breech

> falls within the contract? There has to be a better tool to ensure 
> efficient breech lacks incentive.
> 
> > 2) Normal VI rules would start to apply
> 
> Umm. I see a problem.
> 
> Having gotten into the root, having launched competitively with all 
> registries, bought a Super Bowl ad or lots of glossy pages in 
> magazines to ensure mindshare, the corporate planner may convert this 
> brand marketing property into a direct sales channel, and when ICANN 
> compliance catches up (which may be a very long time, see .travel), 
> the corporate property has to adopt the costs it has avoided up to 
> this point and, with all this initial advantage, now compete with 
> public facing registry propositions.
> 
> For a mass market corporation with millions of CRM relations, the 
> conversion from an empty "brand" registry to a very large 
> "subscription" registry appears to be likely, given the lack of 
> compliance and disincentive for intentional breech.
> 
> > *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
> 
> The parties which have opposed all new gTLDs (I was just looking at 
> http://www.cadna.org/ yesterday afternoon) have been pretty good at 
> ensuring the benefit that there is no risk of consumer protection 
> because no names are sold.
> 
> Restated, doing nothing also achieves this benefit.
> 
> > 2) Consumers could have tangible benefits with .brand TLDs.
> 
> Things consumers could have tangible benefits from is rather vague.
> 
> At this point consumers could have tangible benefits from using 
> alternate roots or using keywords or paper mail and printed catalogs 
> of glossy pictures of artfully designed websites while waiting for the

> next new gTLD round.
> 
> These are outside the scope of the VI PDP WG, as is the claim of 
> consumer benefit from private name spaces. Our charter is the risk and

> benefit of vertically integrating the market in which consumers may, 
> with no restrictions other than those sought by sponsored registries 
> (.aero, .coop, .museum and .cat) and community-based applications 
> prospectively, and later enforced (hand wave at ICANN compliance) in 
> the registry contract.
> 
> A better claim for public benefit than "could have tangible benfits"
> should be offered.
> 
> > *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.
> 
> Part of the ICRC uses "redcross.org", so I'll use .org here. The .org 
> zone is now signed. The root will be signed before anything the VI PDP

> WG does is reflected in changes to the root.
> 
> Why is an unsigned ".charity" a better public policy choice than a 
> signed "charity.org"?
> 
> Would the same security claim mean an unsigned ".bank" is a better 
> public policy choice than a signed "bank.tld", where "tld" is a signed

> zone?
> 
> Since this organization is offered as an example of a "single user", 
> here is a portion of para 2 of section 7.1 of the ByLaws of the ARC:
> 
> "Membership is open to all people of the United States and its 
> territories and its possessions.  Any individual shall be a member of 
> the Corporation if he or she (a) makes a monetary contribution to the 
> Corporation, including a monetary contribution made directly to a 
> Chartered Unit, (b) performs volunteer services for the Corporation, 
> including volunteer services performed directly for a Chartered Unit, 
> or (c) donates blood to the Corporation."
> 
> It appears to me that to use "redcross" as a "single user", all of the
> 8 pages of regional chapters (chartered units) of the American Red 
> Cross, and all of the members of the American Red Cross would have to 
> use another registry, perhaps the existing .org registry, and the 
> domain "redcross.org".
> 
> Meanwhile, charities are using phones, which are more secure than URL 
> redirect payloads in disaster-spam to address the loss control
problem.
> 
> Personally, I prefer to distinguish the goals of for-profit applicants

> from the necessity and compassion claims of non-profits.
> 
> Eric
> 
> > 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
> >
> 
>