RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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

We're definitely getting there.
 
As for the fees, that's my personal view, not the IPC view.  I don't
mind them because I don't believe SRSU/SRMU will be "cost free" to
ICANN.  For example, there will be costs associated with compliance
(even if limited to receiving and reviewing monthly reports).  Plus,
they'll now be eligible for all the "constituency support" activities in
the budget from which the CSG and NCSG have been excluded. :-)  I'm
assuming that the money comes from the registry fees.  (If not, I take
it all back.)  I'm not, however,  persuaded that the fees necessarily
should be on the same scale for an SRSU or SRMU with 50 names as they
should be for a .whatever with 1 million names. 
 
 


________________________________

        From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:43 AM
        To: Rosette, Kristina; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
        
        

        Your position on SRSU and SRMU, seems quite close to that of
NCSG representatives. It would be good if the user house stood together
on this. 

        I hope our WG chairs are taking note of this and making that
closeness of position part of the report 

         

        The only objection I have to what you have said below is that
you are "fine with fees paid to ICANN for 2nd level names" in SRSUs. I
am not fine with such fees for a SRSU, I think they are unjustifiable.
Could you elaborate on why you don't mind them?

         

        --MM

         

        From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
        Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 12:01 AM
        To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

         

        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