RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CTCCC Advice Final

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

Perhaps you can provide the rationale as to why the changes were not adopted.  
After all, that is required in any policy processes.  I have not seen that 
rationale.  I understand there is a strong bias amongst a number of members of 
the community against brand keyword TLDs, but in my opinion, that bias should 
not dictate the criteria.  For example, there is no reason at all for a brand 
operating a closed keyword TLD to disclose anywhere on its site the benefits of 
the TLD space, restrictions, etc.  It makes no business sense for anyone to do 
that.  Nor is that any real measure of “consumer” choice, competition, etc.


Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 11:02 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Berry Cobb; gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Robinson
Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CTCCC Advice Final

On 2 November 2012 05:10, Neuman, Jeff 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
My comments basically relate to my disagreement on the types of criteria which 
the group has stated are relevant to brand TLDs (even brand-keyword TLDs) and a 
couple of other areas where either you didn’t understand my comments in the 
last draft (probably my fault for not communicating them effectively) or you 
chose not to adopt them.  I sat down with Jonathan for an hour or so in London 
and went over them and he was intending on discussing those with you all.

Jeff,

Numerous points were raised on your behalf at the last conference call and 
discussed at length.

Some were adopted, others not, with the group IMO fairly well understanding the 
intent of your proposed changes as well as the different characteristics of 
different kinds of TLDs. You're welcome to listen to the recording as evidence 
of the discussion. Some of your suggestions made perfect sense, as some of the 
metrics were inapplicable to certain kinds of applications. OTOH, some of your 
suggested exemptions were strongly objected to for a number of reasons.

I have little interest in rehashing issues which have already been discussed 
and resolved.

- Evan