Dear all,

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.

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.

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).

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.

So, in a nutshell the requirements for Single Registrant TLDs could be as follows:

1) No name selling

2) Single registrant

3) Non-transferrable names

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.

I guess that covered my line of thinking, I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

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.

1) ICANN reporting should be simplified for Single Registrant cases (No need to extended reporting based on single registrant)

2) Escrow requirements could also be relaxed (based non-transferability and single registrant)

BR,

-jr

JARKKO RUUSKA

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

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

From: ext Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com]
Sent: 18. toukokuuta 2010 0:20
To: Ruuska Jarkko (Nokia-CIC/Tampere); bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] BC Position Statement on Vertical Integration (VI)--single registrant TLDs

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,

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11

From: jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com [mailto:jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 2:01 PM
To: randruff@rnapartners.com; bc-gnso@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:

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@nokia.com

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of ext Ron Andruff
Sent: 17. toukokuuta 2010 18:17
To: bc-gnso@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,

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@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of berrycobb@infinityportals.com
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 8:57 AM
To: bc-gnso@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@infinityportals.com

http://www.infinityportals.com

866.921.8891

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On

Behalf Of Philip Sheppard

Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 12:35 AM

To: bc-gnso@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