[bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)-- single registrant TLDs

berrycobb at infinityportals.com berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Mon May 17 12:56:34 UTC 2010


Thank you for your response.  I support your statement that we as BC  
members must advocate for commercial users.  Just to be clear, the  
intent of my example is not in support of a Registry, but more about  
the market in general.  I want to see each approved TLD succeed in the  
market, because that is ultimately the best for consumers.  The last  
thing I want to support are policies that create unfair market  
conditions whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing TLDs will  
create uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers and business  
users of that TLD.

Further, I will state that I have not finalized my opinions WRT to the  
concept of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many other  
characteristics to consider in the whole.  Single Registrant Single  
User(SRSU) vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has been  
discussed a fair amount by not exhaustively.

I appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum going!  Thank you.

Berry Cobb
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb at infinityportals.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On  
Behalf Of Philip Sheppard
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration  
(VI)-- single registrant TLDs

I too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with the other cases.

My default in such cases is that unless one can be watertight in the  
then erring on the side of caution is probably better.
However, as BC members we need to think what is the best model for commercial
users, not what is best for one registry or other.
So I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social registry !!


More information about the Bc-gnso mailing list