<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"
xmlns:ns0="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Nokia Sans";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.plaintextchar0
{mso-style-name:plaintextchar;
mso-style-priority:99;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;
text-decoration:none none;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 78.0pt 72.0pt 78.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:901020715;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1184345804 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:72.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:108.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:144.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:180.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:216.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:252.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:288.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2060779764;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1627828930 67698705 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-text:"%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I would be hesitant to use Nokia as an example as there are many
other potential .brand applicants around anyway. But what I can do is to try to
describe .brand case as I see it (with the risk of repeating my previous mails
to BC and VIWG lists). I agree with Ron that some cases that have been on the
table are more problematic than others. That is why I want to put forward only
the most clear-cut case. I feel that once we begin to give/sell names to
consumers we are closing the gap between single and “standard” TLDs
and not promoting fair competition. It also begins to be more difficult to define
such TLDs without opening the flood gates for gaming.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The very basic case for a .brand TLD would simply be a direct
replacement of the current brand.com second level domain name. No more than
that. In some scenarios some names would be strictly internal and
wouldn’t even be shown outside corporate intranet. The number of names
would easily be below 10,000 names even with the localized names and content.
Names are not sold but only used for internal purposes (web pages, services).
No names are even registered to employees. Basically you could imagine the
current brand.com offering to be moved one level up to .brand top-level-domain.
There would be only registrant, brand itself, hence the Single Registrant
designation. And no registrars would be required to act as “middle
men” and .brand could register the names for itself. All in all it would
be a “fully vertically integrated” TLD.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>In my opinion that should make a very clear case that we should
be able to clearly define. The names would be non-transferable (if the .brand
goes out of business, the TLD would be taken down in a controlled way). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>If .brand would like to start selling names, it would have to
conform with the same rules as everyone else. There would have to be ICANN accredited
registrars and so on.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>So, in a nutshell the requirements for Single Registrant TLDs
could be as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>No name selling<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Single registrant<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>3)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Non-transferrable names<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Ron raised a valid point about giving names to business partners.
So, what are limits and conditions in that? By “giving” I mean
giving access, business partners not being registrants at all. Names could probably
be “given” only to companies in direct relation with the TLD in
question, but I admit we do need more tangible rules than that to make it work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I guess that covered my line of thinking, I am happy to answer
any questions you might have.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>PS. While I feel that the vertical integration is the single most
important issue in the Single Registrant case there are also other smaller DAG
requirements that won’t make sense for Single Registrants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>ICANN reporting should be simplified for Single Registrant cases
(No need to extended reporting based on single registrant)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo3'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span
style='mso-list:Ignore'>2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Escrow requirements could also be relaxed (based non-transferability
and single registrant)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>BR,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>-jr<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>JARKKO RUUSKA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Head of Internet Domain Initiatives<br>
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Nokia Corporation<br>
Tel: +358 50 324 7507<br>
E-Mail: </span><a href="jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif"'>jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com</span></a><u><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans","sans-serif";color:blue'><br>
<br>
</span></u><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> ext Ron Andruff
[mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> 18. toukokuuta 2010 0:20<br>
<b>To:</b> Ruuska Jarkko (Nokia-CIC/Tampere); bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Jarrko
and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Jarrko
wrote: <</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It is generally seen that Single Registrant TLDs can work if the
boundaries are correctly defined.></span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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…<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Jarrko
wrote: <</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>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.<br>
</span><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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… <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Kind
regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>RA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>Ronald N. Andruff</span><span style='color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>President<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:blue'> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>RNA Partners, Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>220 </span><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><ns0:Street><ns0:address><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Fifth Avenue</span></ns0:address></ns0:Street></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'><ns0:place><ns0:City><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>New York</span></ns0:City><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>, </span><ns0:State><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>New York</span></ns0:State><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'> </span><ns0:PostalCode><span
style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>10001</span></ns0:PostalCode></ns0:place></span><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:blue'>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span
style='color:blue'> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com [mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 17, 2010 2:01 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> randruff@rnapartners.com; bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi Folks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>To me, as a representative of a large corporation in BC, it
seems rather odd that BC would not support Single Registrant TLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It would be pretty strange if the one constituency that is
supposed to drive the interests of businesses would oppose Single Registrant
TLDs.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The need is there and the case is pretty simple. Here’s a
message I posted earlier to the VIWG mailing list:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><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. <br>
As Milton stated the problem is how to define this kind of TLD in way that
prohibits gaming and unfair competition. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
In my opinion this approach would satisfy the needs of brand TLDs without
promoting gaming or unfair competitive advantage.> <span
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Just bringing a potential TLD applicant’s view on the
table,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>BR,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>JARKKO RUUSKA<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Head of Internet Domain Initiatives<br>
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration, Tampere, Finland<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nokia Corporation<br>
Tel: +358 50 324 7507<br>
E-Mail: </span><a href="jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Nokia Sans Wide","sans-serif"'>jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com</span></a><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>ext
Ron Andruff<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 17. toukokuuta 2010 18:17<br>
<b>To:</b> bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Dear members,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Steve wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><<i>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.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i>I believe the BC is in the best position to argue for
potential needs of single registrant TLDs like those described in these
examples.<o:p></o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><o:p> </o:p></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i>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</i>.><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>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-เ-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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Ron wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><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). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>Holding
everything up until the ICANN community believes we have addressed <u>every </u>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:blue'>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.><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Your comments on this direction are most welcome. I
would be happy to take them back to the VI WG list, as appropriate.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>RA<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Ronald N. Andruff<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>President<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>RNA Partners, Inc.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>220 Fifth Avenue<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>New York, New York 10001<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of
berrycobb@infinityportals.com<br>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM<br>
To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br>
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration
(VI)--single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Philip,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Thank you for your response. I support your
statement that we as BC <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>members must advocate for commercial users. Just to
be clear, the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>intent of my example is not in support of a Registry, but
more about <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>the market in general. I want to see each approved
TLD succeed in the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>market, because that is ultimately the best for
consumers. The last <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>thing I want to support are policies that create unfair
market <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>conditions whereby a TLD fails and closes shop. Failing
TLDs will <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>create uncertainty and disruptions for other consumers
and business <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>users of that TLD.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Further, I will state that I have not finalized my
opinions WRT to the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>concept of Single Registrant TLDs, as there are many
other <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>characteristics to consider in the whole. Single
Registrant Single <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>User(SRSU) vs. Single Registrant Multiple User(SRMU) has
been <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>discussed a fair amount by not exhaustively.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I appreciate the dialog.....lets keep the momentum
going! Thank you.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Berry Cobb<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Infinity Portals LLC<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a href="mailto:berrycobb@infinityportals.com">berrycobb@infinityportals.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><a href="http://www.infinityportals.com">http://www.infinityportals.com</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>866.921.8891<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Behalf Of Philip Sheppard<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>To: bc-gnso@icann.org<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical
Integration <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>(VI)-- single registrant TLDs<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>I too agree on case 1 and understand the complexity with
the other cases.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>My default in such cases is that unless one can be
watertight in the <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>definition,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>then erring on the side of caution is probably better.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>However, as BC members we need to think what is the best
model for commercial<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>users, not what is best for one registry or other.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>So I'm not very sympathetic to the fate of the dot.social
registry !!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText>Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>