Hi Jarkko,

I believe you are correct on all points.

It is unsurprising that some who seek to avoid competition for their TLDs would seek to ‘parallel track’ .brand TLDs into a different policy process. Of course if I was going to run .sport, I would fear .nfl, .nba, .fifa, .mlb, .epl etc. stealing some of the market for sport-related domains, and I probably wouldn’t like to see .basketball or .hockey either (and we’ve see .sport take the ludicrous position that they should not be allowed). Anyway the self interest in Ron’s recommendation is self-evident, and should not have any traction with others.

Best,

Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh

RODENBAUGH LAW

tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087

http://rodenbaugh.com

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 Tampere, Finland
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:

The VIWG has barely scratched the surface on the topic of Single Registrar Single User (SRSU – loosely defined as brands being restricted to using domain names solely for products and services) and still less discussion has been had regarding Single Registrant Multiple User (SRMU – loosely defined as brands providing domain names to customers or subscribers). These topics need to be discussed in greater detail and policies need to be put in place prior to brands entering the application phase, IMHO. At this point in time, the VIWG appears to be stuck in the doldrums awaiting a push from either the Board of GNSO vis-à-vis where it goes from here so I don’t know who or when these important topics will be taken up.

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.

Corporations the world over function on the basis of annual budgets. Without a prescribed budget, it is problematic to initiate any new activity within a company. Therefore, any brand that is planning on submitting an application when the window opens must have included all of the necessary costs around applying for a gTLD in their fiscal 2011 budget, which means that discussions will have to be already had within the executive suite, legal, technical, communications, marketing and financial departments to get the go-ahead on such an initiative. With all of the open issues that still remain with regard to the Applicant Guidebook, I question how many brands have taken these steps within the 50-150 companies you mention. My experience working in the corporate world is that very few executives will put their careers on the line by taking such bold action as to promote participation in something that is yet to be defined in absolute terms, as is our current DAGv4, or internally within their companies.

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:

with all of the moving parts of an untested, new gTLD process we should not introduce yet another set of critical issues (VI) on top of that unless and until we have gained some experience vis-à-vis how the proposed process functions in real life;

the compliance department needs a highly-qualified leader and significantly more staff to enforce the contracts (old and new alike) This is one area that has been sorely lacking in the first decade of ICANN’s existence and going forward to the coming 10 years the number of TLDs compliance will watch over is expected to increase by an order of magnitude of ten.

the compliance department needs new policies to address all of the nefarious activities that are currently happening in the ‘user-registrar-registry domain name registration’ chain of activities, which the VIWG unearthed during its deliberations; and finally,

every activity undertaken by ICANN must be done with the view of building institutional confidence to ensure that the ICANN experiment is not overtaken by a zealous ITU or other such multilateral organization.

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,

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 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 12^th 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,

Ronald N. Andruff

President

RNA Partners, Inc.

220 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10001

+ 1 212 481 2820 ext. 11