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

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff — during our call I noted the discussion of each of your 
questions/suggestions and can write those up for you.

I don't think you'll find any bias against closed keyword TLDs.   Just to take 
the example you raised below, regarding closed keyword TLDs:

Our charter was to look at trust, choice, and competition from perspective of 
consumers.  We defined "consumers" as actual and potential Registrants and 
Users.

I think you'd agree that Internet Users can access domains in closed TLDs 
(sports.book, search.Amazon).  So, Users will view closed TLDs as viable 
choices and potential competition for domains in legacy TLDs.

For Users to make informed choices about relying on a new TLD, we believe they 
would want to understand if domains in that TLD are openly available or 
restricted to just a single company.   That helps a user looking at 
[domain].book understand if they're seeing books generally available, or 
perhaps just those books carried by the TLD operator (Amazon, for example).

You'll see in the latest draft that we accepted your suggestion for item 2.1, 
so the metric for restrictions disclosure would NOT count closed brand TLDs 
like .Neustar.   But for the reasons above, 2.1 does measure whether a closed 
keyword TLD "clearly discloses" its restrictions.

No bias against the closed keyword TLD.  Just a bias for informed User choice.

Hope that helps.
--
Steve


From: <Neuman>, Jeff Neuman 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, November 2, 2012 6:08 AM
To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, Jonathan 
Robinson <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CTCCC Advice Final

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> 
[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<mailto: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