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

Mon May 17 21:20:10 UTC 2010

Jarrko and all,

Jarrko wrote: <It is generally seen that Single Registrant TLDs can work if
the boundaries are correctly defined.>

One of the most difficult things for the VI WG is defining what the
boundaries would be for a single registrant, so it would be very helpful if
we could use Nokia as a model to work through what those issues could be.
Would you consider putting your potential model forward so that the VI WG
could look at something ‘real’ from a 360-degree perspective?  For my part,
due to the fact that we have no examples of how a brand would use their SR
TLD, I don’t know what boundaries are needed and which ones are extraneous

Jarrko wrote: <brand TLDs should not be allowed to sell any names outside
their internal usage. Names could probably be allowed to be given to
business partners though. The brand TLD should also be non-transferrable or
at least that would require special permission from ICANN. If the brand
owner goes bankrupt TLD would be taken down in a controlled way and not
transferred to anyone else.
>

Even though the basic parameters you note seem sensible and simple, the
devil is in the details as to under what conditions names would be “given”
to business partners as opposed to being “sold”; up to how many can be given
away; for what purpose can the business partners use those names and what if
the brand allows second level names that are out of ICANN’s perview; etc.,
etc.  Transferrable or non-transferrable: under what conditions would/could
a brand domain be transferred?  What if the brand changes industry as the
German steel company that morphed into a travel business some year ago – how
would that affect its business partners, both past and new? How does ICANN
take down a top-level domain in a controlled way?  What does that entail?
What if a business partner has built a significant business around the brand
TLD and doesn’t want to let it go?  

These are just a few of the questions that come to my mind.  With more time
and more minds focused on this, I am sure many, many more questions would
come to light and all of them would need to be addressed before ICANN can
open that space in the DNS, in my view.  Everything we do in this regard
must have a basis upon which ALL brands could follow

So, in summary, I am not suggesting that the BC not support single
registrant TLDs; rather I am contending that this is a topic that perhaps
needs a working group of its own to flesh out all of the pro and con
arguments, so that the larger ICANN community can weigh in on a
recommendation that will – without question – have a significant impact on
the DNS going forward should it be agreed by the ICANN community that brand
TLDs are, in fact, necessary for innovation (something I personally don’t
hold any position on at this time).

Unfortunately, the VI issue is like peeling an onion one layer at a time

For this reason I am advocating putting the less problematic new TLDs in one
queue and the more difficult ones in queues of their own until such time as
various working groups have sorted through all of the issues that surround
them and reported their finding back to the community.  In the meantime, the
rollout of non-problematic TLDs should proceed.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

  _____  

From: jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com [mailto:jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:01 PM
To: randruff at rnapartners.com; bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs

Hi Folks,

I haven’t been overly active in the BC list but I’ve surely been an active
follower. I am also a member of the Vertical Integration Working Group. 

To me, as a representative of a large corporation in BC, it seems rather odd
that BC would not support Single Registrant TLDs.

As a matter of fact the Single Registrant TLDs or brand TLDs are pretty much
the only thing the VIWG actually is in agreement. It is generally seen that
Single Registrant TLDs can work if the boundaries are correctly defined.

It would be pretty strange if the one constituency that is supposed to drive
the interests of businesses would oppose Single Registrant TLDs.

The need is there and the case is pretty simple. Here’s a message I posted
earlier to the VIWG mailing list:

<I think most of us recognize that brand TLDs should not have to use
registrars. It just doesn’t make any sense for brand TLDs to buy their own
internal names from some 3rd party. 
As Milton stated the problem is how to define this kind of TLD in way that
prohibits gaming and unfair competition. 

The way I see it, the solution is simple. I think brand TLDs should not be
allowed to sell any names outside their internal usage. Names could probably
be allowed to be given to business partners though. The brand TLD should
also be non-transferrable or at least that would require special permission
from ICANN. If the brand owner goes bankrupt TLD would be taken down in a
controlled way and not transferred to anyone else.

In my opinion this approach would satisfy the needs of brand TLDs without
promoting gaming or unfair competitive advantage.> 

Just bringing a potential TLD applicant’s view on the table,

BR,

JARKKO RUUSKA

Head of Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration,  Tampere, Finland

Nokia Corporation
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com

From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
ext Ron Andruff
Sent: 17. toukokuuta 2010 18:17
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs

Dear members,

Steve wrote: 

<I am not aware of any BC member (or NetChoice member) who's planning to
apply for their own TLD, but I doubt any would want to operate their own TLD
if arbitrary caps were placed on self-managed registrations.

I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for potential needs of
single registrant TLDs like those described in these examples.

Let's acknowledge that single-registrant TLDs would need to conform with
ICANN's contract and consensus policies.  It's also acceptable to require
the use of a single accredited registrar, as long as this registrar can be
wholly-owned and controlled by the single registrant company.    But let's
argue against arbitrary registration caps that would force single-registrant
TLDs to use all ICANN registrars once those caps were reached.>

While Steve's arguments may have merit, as we saw in Jon's and Berry's
responses, there are so many different ways to look at every permutation of
single-registrant TLDs it is clear the entire subject needs considerably
more time to study than the VI WG has vis-à-vis trying to complete its
mandate prior to the start of the application process.  For this reason, I
noted what follows below in one of my posts to the VI WG list last week.  I
share it here with the members of the BC, because I believe that many
members may feel the same way about this exercise.

Ron wrote: 

<What I see shaping up is a divergence of thinking that goes in two distinct
directions, i.e., those that are more supportive of VI and those that are
more supportive of adhering to the status quo (maintaining the tried and
tested structure that has been in place for the past decade).  

In my view, we need to be realistic about what we will/will not achieve as a
result of this WG and consider promoting the concept of finalizing an
Applicant Guidebook as soon as possible, recognizing that no matter how hard
the community continues to try to refine it, it will most certainly need
some kind of re-tooling after the ‘first round’ or batch of applicants test
the systems, as it were.  This WG should take the necessary time to do our
work thoroughly without predetermined timelines forcing the VI WG to
compromise on a solution that will not be able to stand the test of time
going forward.  

I don’t believe that a delay in integrating our work product into the AG v2
(or not, should the outcome of our efforts be a recommendation to maintain
the status quo) will harm those applicants that we are working hard to find
solutions for, neither their intended users.  ‘Difficult’ new TLD applicants
(e.g., brands, small communities, etc.) could, and in my view, should, be
put in a separate queue until such time as any and all issues that cloud
those applications (such as VI) have been clarified.  All others that are
straightforward should be allowed to get into the queue for immediate
processing to allow ICANN to initiate the application process in 2010.  

Holding everything up until the ICANN community believes we have addressed
every issue is a fool’s errand.  Be sure, no matter how hard we try to
address every aspect of this, there will be issues and implications that
arise only after the first batch of new gTLD applications have been
processed.  What is at stake is not only the loss of credibility of
applicants in the eyes of their ‘communities’, investors and the like, as
has been often cited at open mikes and other for a, but also of ICANN’s
credibility as an institution.  For 3+ years ICANN (that is, all of us as
part of the community of ICANN) has been trying to bring new TLDs to market.
Delaying this into 4 and then 5 years while we try to ‘get everything just
right’ serves no one.

Therefore, let’s be sure that the VI WG does its work in an appropriate way
in an appropriate time frame and NOT link anything we are doing to the
initiation of new TLD applications.>

Your comments on this direction are most welcome.  I would be happy to take
them back to the VI WG list, as appropriate.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of
berrycobb at infinityportals.com
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM
To: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs

Philip,

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

http://www.infinityportals.com

866.921.8891

-----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  

definition,

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 !!

Philip

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20100517/4ce9f7a1/attachment.html>