RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps

["Michael R. Graham" <mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve:

Thanks – this is a very useful place to start.  We should also consider whether 
additional metrics directed to closed branded sites might be useful.

Michel R.


[cid:image46b972.GIF@f1997b52.47af585a]


Michael R. Graham
Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP
233 South Wacker Drive
6300 Willis Tower
Chicago, IL 60606-6357
Direct: (312) 474-6616
Firm: (312) 474-6300
Fax: (312) 474-0448
mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.marshallip.com



The material in this transmission may contain confidential information. If you 
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure or use of this information by 
you is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, 
please delete it, destroy all copies and notify Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP 
by return e-mail or by telephone at (312) 474-6300. Thank you.
From: owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 10:26 PM
To: gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps
Importance: High

As Jonathan mentioned in his note, I took a stab at editing our advice letter 
to identify several metrics that should not include "Closed" gTLDs.

My suggested changes are in red, starting on page 9 of the attachment.   That's 
where I offer a definition of open/closed based on whether the TLD operator has 
been granted the exemption to Specification 9: Registry Operator Code of 
Conduct.     (the Code of Conduct is shown in Appendix B)

Please reply with edits and suggestions and we'll discuss everything on our 
Friday call.

Best,
Steve

--
Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482


From: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jzuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Saturday, October 20, 2012 11:56 AM
To: "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCI WG Next Steps (or how I learned to stop 
worrying and love Jeff Neuman)


WG,

As we arrived in Toronto last Friday, we encountered concerns from the 
Registries and Registrars regarding our advice letter, just as GNSO Council was 
planning to vote on sending our final advice to the board.

Jeff Neuman sent a gracious email (see below) explaining his concern: several 
hundred new gTLDs won't make domain registrations available to the public, so 
many of our proposed metrics would be inapplicable.

In fact, we had already recognized the distinction between open and closed TLDs 
on a few of our metrics (3.7, 3.9, 3.10 ).

But there are several other metrics where might decide to apply to all new 
gTLDs; apply only to Open TLDs, or bifurcate to have different metrics for open 
vs closed TLDs.   For example, Jeff described how .neustar will be a closed 
brand TLD so they wouldn't prominently display information about their domain 
registration policies.

Several WG members in Toronto discussed this over the weekend. (Steve 
DelBianco, John Berard, Jonathan Robinson, Evan Leibovitch, and Olivier 
Crepin-Leblond) We conceded that In some cases, that doesn't make sense.  We 
concluded that it would be prudent to accept Jeff's invitation to review all 
our metrics in light of his request.  We could have a WG call, then issue a 
revised advice letter for consideration at the next meetings of ALAC and GNSO.

So, at the GNSO Council meeting on Wednesday, John Berard withdrew his motion 
to endorse our advice letter, explaining that the WG plans to address 
open/closed TLDs and issue new advice as soon as possible.   Jeff Neuman 
reiterated his earlier comments.   Wolfgang Kleinwasser took issue with 
definition of consumer trust, but offered nothing specific.

Steve DelBianco will send around a markup of our advice that we can discuss on 
our call this Friday 26-Oct at 19:00 UTC.  Call logistics will be sent out in 
the next few days.

Best,
Jonathan



From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: October 11, 2012, 7:52:15 AM PDT
To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [council] Thoughts on Consumer Metrics for new gTLDs

A number of us have recently been discussing the motion up for a vote next week 
in Toronto to adopt the Working Group’s draft advice letter on Consumer Trust, 
Consumer Choice and Competition.  First, I want to commend the working group  
on the job that they have done and the meticulous detail incorporated in the 
letter.  I believe that they group did as good of a job as anyone could do to 
come up with metrics based on their best predictions as to what the future gTLD 
landscape would look like.  At the time that the recommendations were created, 
and the draft advice letter went out for comment, no one knew the number of 
applications, types of applications, etc.

Now, after the reveal, we have more information about the landscape and believe 
that the original criteria included in the final advice letter may not be well 
suited for a large number of gTLD applications (which later will be TLDs).  
While much of the criteria is extremely relevant towards the open gTLDs, they 
do not necessarily map well to a large number of the other closed, brand, 
single-registrant or even geographic based TLDs.  Over 1/3 of the applications 
are for brand TLDs, with many of them being single-registrant TLDs.  Some of 
the criteria included in the measure of consumer choice section of the Final 
Advice Letter, for example, are not applicable to the brand TLDs and may, in 
fact, give misleading results when looking at the issue of consumer choice.  By 
way of example, the criteria for consumer choice looks at whether the website 
clearly discloses the benefits and restrictions of the name space (Section 
2.1).  This makes sense for open registries, but for a closed TLD (like 
.neustar), it does not.  As a fairly large $2.5 billion public company, if 
Neustar converted its homepage to http://www.neustar<http://www.neustar/>, we 
would not put anywhere on our home page the benefits/restrictions of .neustar.  
 As a closed TLD, there would be no other registrants other than Neustar itself 
and using up valuable space on our homepage to even mention why were are using 
.neustar just would not make sense.  In addition, Section 2.3 (gTLD registry 
benefits and restrictions should be understandable to registrants and users) 
and 2.12 (geographic diversity of registrants) would also not be applicable to 
the closed-TLDs or regional TLDs.  There are other examples.

Therefore, our recommendation is that the Council consider sending back the 
letter to the Working Group to revise their advice based on the current gTLD 
application landscape before passing such advice on to the board.  If this 
means bifurcating the advice based on the type of TLD, that may make some sense 
as well.

We do not want the group to be disheartened, because they did an excellent job 
with the information that was available at the time.  We now know more and 
believe that although the letter presents an excellent starting point, it needs 
some  additional work.

We look forward to discussing this further in Toronto.

Best regards,


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, VA 20166
Office:+1.571.434.5772  Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: 
+1.703.738.7965/jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
/www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>