RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The SRSU concept is just an attempt at mis-direction by the IPC. Too bad
that even the NCSG seems to be falling for it. Why should certain
strings be carved out for so-called TM or brand owners and special
exception? Doesn't the fact that only one applicant will be awarded any
given string make them all *brand* owners in the end? And virtually
every string under the Sun has been trademarked somewhere and/or is
someone's brand.

Why should Apple or Cannon get exceptions and Sport, Web, or Jones not?
On top of this, we are looking at another round of IP interests lobbying
the heck out of ICANN for even *better* or *stricter* TM protection
mechanisms because they aren't happy with what they already got.

Whether you are for or against VI/CO at any level, there does not need
to be, and should not be, any special carve out for TM or brand holders
when applying for their so-called gTLD. If they want to be an SRSU they
are perfectly capable of doing that under the currnet version of the
DAG. Complaints about difficulties using the reserved list are just
nonsense. Whatever they do, they will have AND WILL WANT TO negotiate
that part of the agreement. Every applicant will.


Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, July 08, 2010 1:03 pm
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Kristina – I think my point is not about your response, but about the
participants in this group and their reactions to applicants and TLD
operators.
 
When the issue of Registrars come up, we hear wild, unsubstantiated
claims that the past harms caused by a Registrar will automatically
translate into harms caused by a Registry if there is cross ownership so
we must exclude them as a class of participants. My point was that if
this theory holds for Registrars than it should for brands. Enron, BP,
Worldcom all were bad actors, so that means all S&P 500 companies should
be excluded as well. 
 
 
 
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 9:52 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU


 
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 



Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by
Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and
may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your
system. Thank you.