Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I don't believe I am being misdirected by it.

I have always felt that the individual advocacy organization, charities, 
service organization or NGO should be able to have a gTLD and control its own 
fate without the need to pay registrars for the privilege.  

While I am a little leery of restricting it to trademark owners, I have become 
aware that many NGOs, advocacy, charity/benevolent groups and the like have 
taken to protecting their brands for their own reasons (for example fund 
raising).  While it is taking me a while to really grok that there is a 
beneficial side to marking words, I have come to understand that this mechanism 
can serve the NCSG membership just as it serves business interests.  Just as I 
learned years ago that patents sometime serve indigenous people who want to 
keep their natural medicines from being ripped off.  There are two sides to the 
exploitation of the trademark system.

The reason they should get exceptions, though I am more and more hating the 
notion that we are restricting this to an exception basis, if someone is 
keeping the registration in house (for some definition of in-house), there is 
no reason they should be forced to buy an outside service to do so. 

As far a registrars go, if you provide a useful service, most Rys will avail 
themselves of it and most registrants will expect it. I do not see any reason 
to force them to buy your services.

a.


On 8 Jul 2010, at 14:33, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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.
> 
>