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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not think anybody has received consensus support because there was never a 
vote or a procedure to attempt to achieve it.

In the past all sides presented a point of view and we had the expectation the 
Board would decide on one of these, but as we all know the Board went another 
way.

At this point I am willing to throw all suggestions, proposals into the middle 
and lets work on trying to achieve consensus, that is what we are supposed to 
do.

Maybe the next step is for people who put forth a proposal is to explain why 
their proposal works and what are the critical elements of it. To defend their 
proposal and show this group why it is a benefit to the community and why we 
should consider it.

Jeff




From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 9:46 AM
To: 'richardtindal@xxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RySG Supermajority view on Vertical Integration


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<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>  / 
www.neustar.biz<http://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>