Comments on: Vertical Integration Options Report Available to Community http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/ Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:42:27 -0800 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Another reason why Go Daddy won’t become a registry | DomainIncite.com - Domain Name News & Opinion http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-24297 Another reason why Go Daddy won’t become a registry | DomainIncite.com - Domain Name News & Opinion Sun, 14 Nov 2010 22:59:54 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-24297 [...] The decision may also have something to do with another economic study, produced for ICANN in February this year, this time by economics experts Steven Salop and Joshua Wright. It was published in March. [...] [...] The decision may also have something to do with another economic study, produced for ICANN in February this year, this time by economics experts Steven Salop and Joshua Wright. It was published in March. [...]

]]> By: Ray Marshal http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-21646 Ray Marshal Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:50:18 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-21646 @Jacob, Nice idea regarding standard information. That approach seems more constructive than simply pointing someone to a website with no explanation. Also, the registry's website is probably the better candidate for receiving such traffic, especially if there are no resellers. @Jacob,

Nice idea regarding standard information. That approach seems more constructive than simply pointing someone to a website with no explanation. Also, the registry’s website is probably the better candidate for receiving such traffic, especially if there are no resellers.

]]> By: Jacob http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-21643 Jacob Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:09:02 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-21643 @ Ray, Interesting idea. The inactive domains could also resolve to default page hosted by the registry with some standard information about the basis of the registration. For example: This .example domain is inactive and has been registered by X on the basis of trademark registration Y granted by Z country. For information contact: X @ Ray,

Interesting idea. The inactive domains could also resolve to default page hosted by the registry with some standard information about the basis of the registration. For example: This .example domain is inactive and has been registered by X on the basis of trademark registration Y granted by Z country. For information contact: X

]]> By: Ray Marshal http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-21615 Ray Marshal Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:20:31 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-21615 Regarding trademark concerns, might the new gTLD registrars consider creating two classes of domains: 1) active; and 2) inactive. Companies that purchase trademark domains during the sunrise period could choose either class depending on whether, or not, they intend to use the domain. If they plan to use the domain, the domain goes into the active class and they pay an annual fee like any other domain holder. However, if they plan not to use the domain, they pay nothing and the domain goes into the inactive class. However, if they pay nothing, the inactive domain will resolve to the registrar's website whenever someone types that inactive domain in their web browser so no economic value accrues to the trademark holder. Perhaps this is the middle ground we need to address the concerns of the trademark holders while moving the new gTLD process forward. It could save trademark holders significant money while allowing ICANN to expedite the new gTLD process. Regarding trademark concerns, might the new gTLD registrars consider creating two classes of domains: 1) active; and 2) inactive. Companies that purchase trademark domains during the sunrise period could choose either class depending on whether, or not, they intend to use the domain. If they plan to use the domain, the domain goes into the active class and they pay an annual fee like any other domain holder. However, if they plan not to use the domain, they pay nothing and the domain goes into the inactive class. However, if they pay nothing, the inactive domain will resolve to the registrar’s website whenever someone types that inactive domain in their web browser so no economic value accrues to the trademark holder. Perhaps this is the middle ground we need to address the concerns of the trademark holders while moving the new gTLD process forward. It could save trademark holders significant money while allowing ICANN to expedite the new gTLD process.

]]> By: Constantine Roussos (.music) http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-21608 Constantine Roussos (.music) Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:14:14 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-21608 Let us hope that vertical integration is voted in. You can not call for innovation in the TLD space if you are still bound by registrar-registry separation, especially for closed/restricted community TLDs. Thanks for posting this report, Constantine Roussos .music www.music.us Let us hope that vertical integration is voted in. You can not call for innovation in the TLD space if you are still bound by registrar-registry separation, especially for closed/restricted community TLDs.

Thanks for posting this report,

Constantine Roussos
.music
http://www.music.us

]]> By: Jothan Frakes http://blog.icann.org/2010/03/vertical-integration-options-report-available-to-community/comment-page-1/#comment-21594 Jothan Frakes Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:20:05 +0000 http://blog.icann.org/?p=1389#comment-21594 Thank you for making these available John. Thank you for making these available John.

]]>