Good catch, Barry. The article certainly
supports that truism that information is our friend.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Berry Cobb
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010
1:33 PM
To: bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post
This is an
interesting read about Brands and gTLDs
http://domainincite.com/survey-reveals-demand-for-brand-tlds/
Infinity Portals LLC
berrycobb@infinityportals.com
http://infinityportals.com
720.839.5735
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010
5:38 AM
To: randruff@rnapartners.com;
bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post
Hello Ron (and all),
I agree that there
are things that could be done to clarify the overall gTLD process for everyone.
Communication campaign to reach all the companies around the globe just being
one of them. Unfortunately, it seems that we are running out of time and we
just have play with the cards we’ve been dealt. For potential brand
applicants it means the submission of their applications with the rest of the
standard TLDs. Only time will tell how the rules are changed for the
subsequent rounds (Whenever they will happen).
Up until now,
I’ve never heard anything about brands not being able to apply as
standard TLDs. In the Vertical Integration Working Group (which I am also a
member of) there was a certain reluctance towards granting exceptions to any
special TLDs (including brands, communities, orphans , etc.) regarding vertical
integration, but I fail to recall any discussion about disqualifying brands as
potential TLD applicants. After all, the WG was chartered to solve the
cross-ownership between registries and registrars, not to specify who is
eligible to apply.
As a summary, my
understanding about the current ICANN ruling is that they are not excluding any
type applicants and that all applicants have to live with the same rules
(Geographical and Community type of applicants being the only
exceptions).
Undoubtedly DAG5
will tell us more about this.
Thanks,
-jr
JARKKO
RUUSKA
Head of
Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration
Nokia
Corporation
Visiokatu 1, 33720
Tel: +358 50 324 7507
E-Mail: jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com
From: ext Ron Andruff
[mailto:randruff@rnapartners.com]
Sent: 25. lokakuuta 2010 19:47
To: Ruuska Jarkko
(Nokia-CIC/Tampere); bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post
Jarrko and all,
I don’t disagree with your rationale
for brands being ‘good stewards’ and, more importantly, I was not
suggesting brands go to the end of the queue. Having listened closely at
the BC Washington meeting presentation on ‘Brands as gTLDs’ by Fred
Felman, Debbie Hughes and Kristina Rossette and correlating that to the
discussions that we have had on this topic within the Vertical Integration Working
Group (VIWG), the realization of what needs to be done before the we will see
brand names in the root became very clear to me. Hence my recommendation
to establish a separate, parallel path for brands to address the issues
that abound in that ‘segment’ of potential applicants.
Two key aspects formed the basis for my
recommendation, as follows:
Moreover, I am not
personally aware of anyone on the VIWG who supports allowing brands to queue up
in the ‘standard’ or ‘community-based’ application
lines to submit their documentation like any other applicant. My
understanding is that it is not simply a question of whether brands will accept
the ICANN principle of equal access for all registrars to sell all domain
names; rather brand name gTLDs is a new addition to the heretofore categories
of ‘generic’ and ‘country code’ TLDs and therein lays
the issue.
Without a budget in place
and determined executive suite leadership, very few brands will tread into
ICANN waters when the application window for new gTLDs opens, in my view.
A few, perhaps like Nokia, who have long been involved in the ICANN community
and therefore can draw on that experience, may be prepared to go forward.
However, most brands, in my view, will wait and watch to learn from the
experience of those few companies that step forward when the time comes.
Having participated for the better part of
a year on the VIWG, the overall position that I have come to with regard to new
gTLDs is that:
I trust that my blog post with regard to
brands falls in line with that position.
I hope that this rather long posting adds
more clarity to the matter, but am happy to discuss this further should you so
wish.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11
From:
owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of jarkko.ruuska@nokia.com
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010
2:59 AM
To: randruff@rnapartners.com;
bc-gnso@icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] Blog post
Thanks Ron for
sharing this.
The blog post was a
pretty accurate and thorough description of what has been going on lately with
ICANN and the gTLD program. I agree with you for the most part, but some things
you wrote didn’t make any sense to me and left me in state of confusion.
More specifically
the topic related to the brand TLDs was the one that caught my eye. You stated
that the schedule of so called brand TLDs should be pushed further compared to
the regular TLDs. And the reason for this would be the unfinished work with the
definition of SRSU and other brand TLD related issues.
I really fail to see
the logic in this. Let me list a couple of reasons why brand TLDs should be
delegated first rather than be put to the end of the queue.
1)
The
companies behind brand TLDs are usually in good financial standing and can
afford well-known back-end registry service provider or skilled enough people
to run the registry properly thus posing no threat to stability or security of
the root
2)
The
brands by definition have a reputation to maintain. That thing alone guarantees
that the TLDs are properly operated to avoid any negative publicity.
3)
The
requirement of having to use registrars (Which SRSU model is supposed to fix)
is nothing but a small inconvenience and cost item for big corporations.
Nothing really keeps them from applying a standard TLD and bear the added minor
financial impact of contracting a registrar.
4)
ICANN
can’t really say no to the money these kind of easy and safe TLD
applications would bring on the table (it is estimated that there would be at
least 50-150 of them, $185,000 each, you can do the math).
5)
Last
but not least ICANN could be facing legal implications of delaying the brand
TLDs as the big corporations might find it as a discriminatory approach
Thanks,
-jr
JARKKO
RUUSKA
Head of
Internet Domain Initiatives
Compatibility and Industry Collaboration
Nokia
Corporation
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland
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: 23. lokakuuta 2010 0:53
To: 'bc - GNSO list'
Subject: [bc-gnso] Blog post
Dear all,
As it may have relevance to members of the BC, I thought I
should make you aware of a blog post I made on CircleID regarding the long
delays and long timelines that lay ahead vis-à-vis new gTLDs [ http://www.circleid.com/posts/and_then_there_was_the_issue_of_time/
].
The October 12th BC meeting in Washington,
particularly the session on “brands as gTLDs” that Fred Felman
chaired, was extremely valuable in fleshing out the complexities around brands
as TLDs and got me to thinking more about how ICANN best handle this important
aspect. I recommend that members go back and read the transcripts or
listen to the MP3 to learn more if they didn’t participate remotely.
It got me to thinking more about what still needs to be done and how we should
address that. In my post, I suggest putting all brands on a separate path
towards gTLDs until such time as the issues around SRSU and the like have been
properly considered and appropriate recommendations are put in place. I
believe that this would address a number of concerns from different groups and
build institutional confidence in ICANN.
Kind regards,
RA
Ronald N. Andruff
President
RNA Partners, Inc.
220
+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11