Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RySG Supermajority view on Vertical Integration

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

But elements of both may be worth thinking about. And as the main contenders in 
the discussion to date both have elements that might be part of  an eventual 
consensus position.  It might be worth breaking the proposals down and seeing 
which elements are problematic, to whom and why.

Additionally, the clock is ticking now in a way it wasn't ticking for the past 
year.  for the past year there was not reason to find consensus as the goals 
was to convince others of a specific position - that was certainly the case in 
the presentations I saw - it was a debate, not a negotiation.  Now, I assume 
the goal is to find consensus - so the conversation may, hopefully, be different

a.

On 19 Mar 2010, at 12:59, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> The position Afilias/ Neustar/ PIR have been advocating and the position I 
> have been advocating have dominated VI discussion the past year.    No other 
> model has attracted the level of scrutiny and debate that those two models 
> have.
> 
> I'm not saying they can't be revisited.   I'm just saying  we should be 
> realistic.  If neither position has achieved consensus after a year of 
> detailed discussion I think its unlikely such consensus will occur in the 
> next few months.
> 
> R
> 
>  
> 
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>> By your logic, no position on either side or in the middle has gained 
>> consensus support, including staff's proposals. Does that mean everything is 
>> off the table?
>> 
>> I believe all proposals submitted in the past and future must be analyzed by 
>> the WG. 
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
>> Vice President, Law & Policy 
>> NeuStar, Inc. 
>> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Richard Tindal 
>> To: Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>> Sent: Fri Mar 19 12:30:22 2010
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RySG Supermajority view on Vertical Integration 
>> 
>> Jeff/ All,
>> 
>> I agree that all options are on the table.
>> 
>> Having said that,  we've been discussing the RySG proposal for a year now 
>> and it's clearly failed to achieve consensus.   It has many problems, 
>> including:  
>> 
>> 1.    It's tailored to suit the business needs and structures of Afilias/ 
>> PIR/ Neustar.   For example, it would allow two registrars to own 98% of 
>> Afilias (49% each)  ---  and alleges no favoritism or consumer harm would 
>> occur from those registrars selling Afilias names  -  but argues the CRS 
>> (CentralNic and NSI) co-ownership model would cause consumer harm; 
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> 2.    By prohibiting co-owned reseller and back-end relationships it imposes 
>> stricter controls on new TLDs than those in place for .COM and .NET.  I 
>> don't think the interests of fairness or enhanced competiton will be served 
>> by applying stricter controls on new TLDs than we have for .COM.  I'd rather 
>> adopt the Board's Nairobi resolution than do that.  
>> 
>> Similarly,  my proposal that a co-owned registrar can sell up to 100K names 
>> in it's own TLD has also failed to achieve consensus this past year.    I 
>> don't see by see a lot of value in revisiting that model in detail.  
>> 
>> I think we need a (new) solution that satisfies broader interests than those 
>> of parties who've been vocal on this issue the past year.
>> 
>> RT
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> 
>>> All,
>>>  
>>> I wanted to forward around the RySG Supermajority statement on Vertical 
>>> Integration in April 2009 (at the time of DAG 2 it was section 2.8).  For 
>>> whatever reasons (which were not explained in the comments by staff or in 
>>> the analysis of the comments), this was not presented as an option in DAG 
>>> v.3.  We believe this option, however, should be analyzed by the PDP VI WG 
>>> as it will analyze all of the other proposals that have been made, 
>>> including those by staff. 
>>> 
>>> Margie – Can you please make sure this is put on the wiki along with all of 
>>> the other proposals and staff papers on the subject.
>>>  
>>> Thanks.
>>>  
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
>>> 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  / www.neustar.biz     
>>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the 
>>> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or 
>>> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have 
>>> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, 
>>> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you 
>>> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and 
>>> delete the original message.
>>>  
>>> <gTLD Registries Statement on 2 8 (Word Version).pdf>
>> 
>