RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

OK. In economics we make a fundamental distinction between one-off fixed costs 
and variable costs that increment with each addition of quantity. While it's 
true that SRSU creates costs for ICANN, my view is that all of those costs are 
unrelated to the number of registrations. As long as it's truly a single 
registrant and a single point of responsibility I don't see how a SRSU with 20 
names costs ICANN more than a SRSU with 200,000. SRMU is a more arguable case, 
of course.
--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 1:27 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

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