RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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

Jeff,
 
I think the message I just posted (about quality control, etc.) should
answer this question.  If not, let me know.
 
K


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
        Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 2:34 PM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
        
        

        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