[bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs
jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com
jarkko.ruuska at nokia.com
Fri Jan 28 13:30:14 UTC 2011
Just wanted to express my support for Berry's definition of a Single Registrant TLD. In my opinion this is a simple enough (and probably the only feasible) way to define such a thing.
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Berry Cobb
Sent: 28. tammikuuta 2011 2:12
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs
Thank you Steve for updating the BC. Adding to Steve's points......
The reason ICANN Staff, experienced Registry Operators, & some other stakeholders will not sign on for "carve outs" is because there is NO BRIGHT LINE DEFINTION FOR A BRAND. In the context of TLDs what is a BRAND? Is it because they are Fortune 1000 company? Do they own Trademarks in the USA or Europe? Do they earn over $2 billion dollars a year in revenue? Where do we start to draw the line? If some sort of bright line exists, then please share. If it exists then I doubt we would see the pushback experienced today or during the VI WG.
In my opinion, if the BC and IPC ever expect any headway regarding the "dot-brand" concept, then we MUST stop using "DOT-BRAND." Within my short ICANN career, one thing I've noticed is that a BRAND is a loaded and charged word among the community. If the BC supports "carve outs," then the case must be presented very specifically and using BRAND is not the way forward. Framing this concept should embrace the use of "Single Registrant" only. Notice how Single User & Multiple User is omitted? The main reason SRSU gained support during VI is only because of the Single Registrant component and it's limitations in how domains were registered and used. Anything beyond SRSU was poking a stick at a tiger. I remind everyone the reasoning for SRSU & SRMU is only because BRAND could not be defined.
The following is how I view the possible scope of a "Single Registrant" TLD:
* Any 2nd, 3rd, 4th,5th level domains registered are owned and operated only the by the entity that owns the TLD
* All WHOIS information for registered 2nd level domains reflect the entity that owns the TLD
* If the entity chooses to deploy content or allow use by others external to them, the entity is still responsible or liable for that domain and its content
* The entity may register its own domains without equivalent access to other Registrars (RAA concepts should still be used, but ZERO registration fees to ICANN)
* The entity may deploy and use its 2nd level domains how it sees fit and the Reserve Names list no longer applies
* The entity can "warehouse" domains because it owns the domains
* The entity is required to provide Zone File Access for monitoring and compliance
* I am sure there are other elements to define the boundary here....
* Therefore, much of the Code of Conduct is meaningless to a "Single Registrant" TLD
So, using the Cannon example from Steve below, the above "Single Registrant" concepts can satisfy the "carve outs" defined by the BC. If Cannon chose to register 2nd level domains to their customers, partners & vendors, but it is still designated as the Registrant, then the Single Registrant carve outs still apply. What about the Facebook use case? The one batted around most often is berrycobb.facebook. If Facebook chooses to register and supply me a domain and the defined "Registrant" remains as Facebook and Facebook is willing to take on the risk for the content I deploy on berrycobb.facebook, then I imagine the stakeholders listed above will probably not have much issue with "Single Registrant carve outs." This is the essence to "Single Registrant, Single User" concept.
Conversely, any hope for consensus in VI quickly broke down with a use case for "Single Registrant Multiple Users." Using Facebook as an example again.....if FB chose to allow me to register berrycobb.facebook, but instead I am designated as the Registrant, Facebook now competes head to head with other Registrars & Registries in the domain registration business. This is the crux of the debate. Where does one draw the line as Facebook being a social media "BRAND" vs. Facebook a social media "BRAND" that also chooses to register domains and compete in the domain market. If any exceptions or carve outs are given to FB because they are designated a "BRAND", then wouldn't other entities competing for the same registration dollar be at a competitive disadvantage because they are bound by the full extent of the Code of Conduct?
Most will recall that I did not support the sections of the BC Position that called for these SR exceptions, because it did not provide a bright line solution for the community. Rather, it called for nebulous, self-serving, carve outs that only provided confusion. I hope we do not repeat the same mistake for future BC position statements. I'm starting to believe that no position is better than a half-baked one.
With all this said however, I CAN support a "Single Registrant" concept, just not as we have it defined in our position today. There is no doubt that without some sort of designation for single registrant TLDs the Code of Conduct will certainly interfere with operations and may in fact deter some applications. The challenge is that the "Single Registrant" type of TLD is NOT defined in the Guidebook. Until it is, then any exceptions will not make the next AGB. I am willing to join a team of BC members to develop a specific proposal that not only benefits the BC, but benefits the entire community by relieving confusion.
If we expect any momentum, the BC must come together and define a reasonable solution that ICANN Staff and Community can embrace. I am sure my fast-run scope definition above has several holes. So I welcome contributions to fill them. Gripes, complaints, & moans are also welcome if you feel I am way off base.
Thank you, B
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb at infinityportals.com
From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:11 PM
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] pressing the BC recommendations for dot-brand TLDs
To: BC Members
Re: ICANN Con call today regarding Registry Contracts
I joined a large con call today hosted by ICANN, to discuss new gTLD registy agreement. (see description at bottom of this note)
Berry Cobb and Jon Nevett were also on the call.
When we got to the Registry Code of Conduct, ICANN staff mentioned they had received many comments on how this would or would not work for dot-brand registries.
At that point I brought up the BC concerns expressed in our Guidebook comments filed 6-Dec in Cartagena.
I used the example of Canon, since they have said they may pursue a dot-brand.
I said Canon might want to operate its own Registrar and restrict registrations to its own operating divisions, like copiers.canon and cameras.canon
And Canon might want to manage a big sub-domain of photographers using Canon cameras, like [name].photos.canon
I said The Code of Conduct should not restrict dot-brands from using an owned or closely affiliated registrar to register and manage names that it controls. (e.g., for divisions, product lines, locations, customers, affiliates, etc. )
I gave the BC recommendation to insert this clause into the Registry Code of Conduct:
4. Nothing set forth in articles 1, 2, or 3 shall apply to a single-registrant ('dot brand') Registry Operator acting with respect to user data that is under its ownership and control, or with respect to conduct reasonably necessary for the management, operations and purpose of the TLD.
An experienced registry operator on the call said our 'carve out' would allow 'gaming' and abuse. (they say that a lot).
ICANN Staff is very resistant to any 'carve-out' for dot-brands. They oppose any exception (or even a definition) for dot-brand.
Craig Schwartz said ICANN didn't want to get in the business of monitoring Canon's copier business. ( I think that was the point of our recommendation - we don't want ICANN getting involved in how a dot-brand allocates registrations to entities it owns or controls)
Will discuss more on our Monday call, I hope.
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
Temporary Drafting Group Work Session on New gTLD Base Registry Agreement Issues - To Be Held 27 January 2011<http://blog.icann.org/2011/01/temporary-drafting-group-work-session-on-new-gtld-base-registry-agreement-issues-%e2%80%93-to-be-held-27-january-2011/>
by Craig Schwartz on January 14, 2011
The Temporary Drafting Group will hold a teleconference on 27 January 2011. The issues open for drafting/discussion during the call will include:
* Suggestions for additional language for Specification 9 (the Registry Code of Conduct)
* Proposed modifications to conditions related to the termination of a registry services agreement
* Suggestions for clarifications to provision requiring advance notice of registry price increases
* Concepts for continued registry operations instrument to provide continuity of services
This is not a formal public consultation, but is intended to inform drafting which might make up a later public consultation. Any results from the Temporary Drafting Group will be included in documents that will be posted for public comment. No results from the Group will necessarily be used in any agreement drafts, but inputs from the Group will be considered by the ICANN Staff in making recommendations relating to questions discussed or posed to the Group.
This third Temporary Drafting Group session will be held via teleconference on 27 January 2011 at 18.00 UTC (http://timeanddate.com/s/1xxz), and is scheduled to last for 120 minutes.
The Temporary Drafting Group was formed in early 2010 and announced in a 28 April 2010 blog<http://blog.icann.org/2010/04/temporary-drafting-group-work-session-on-new-gtld-implementation-issues-%E2%80%93-to-be-held-3-may-2010/> post. If you would like to participate, please submit your name to TDG-Legal at ICANN.org<mailto:TDG-Legal at ICANN.org>, and we will provide you with information for the call.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bc-gnso