issues for a single-ogaization gTLD
- To: gtld-guide@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: issues for a single-ogaization gTLD
- From: jcady@xxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:53:24 +0100
Please reply to joe.cady@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I'm concerned that the Guidebook doesn't take enough into account a model under
which the applicant does not intend to work with registrars in the traditional
sense, and in effect act as a registrar themselves. This possibility is
mentioned in the Oct 24 CRAI report and given the new gTLD program, new ideas
justifying this way of working could come to light.
I'll suggest one idea here: Our company, STG Interactive, plans to apply for the
.frogans gTLD. We do not intend to sell domain names to registrants, but rather
create domaine names for ameliorating services for our customers. Given the way
in which we will administer these domain names, it would be impossible for us to
take the traditional route of working with the registrars of the world. It's not
because we want to keep the registrars' business for ourselves. It's just that
there would be no business for them to do in the first place.
Our proposed use of .frogans will be very unusual, but we feel that it will
closely adhere to ICANN's core principals. I think that there may be a number of
other applicants who will be prepared to make novel and beneficial use of new
gTLDs, but may be inhibited from going ahead due to the current ambiguities in
the vertical sepeartion of registries and registrars.