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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for this, Steve.

I fully agree with what you've said, as a summary of the rationale that
took place on the call. Further details, of course, can be had in the
recording of the call itself.

As you say, there is no bias against closed TLDs. Just the contrary; in
denying some of the "open TLDs only" exception proposals we
*rejected*bias, maintaining equity in how the metrics are applied.

- Evan



On 2 November 2012 07:55, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>   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>
> Date: Friday, November 2, 2012 6:08 AM
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Berry Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx" <
> gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>, Jonathan Robinson <
> 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<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> 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
>
>
>



-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56