[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Resending Questions to ask the Board

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I understand that they are asserting a baseline approach.

I also think it's pretty clear, however they answer your questions, that their 
"baseline" constitutes a radical deviation from current practice with a large 
number of ambiguities.

Given that, I think we should focus on developing a policy so that we set the 
approach, and worry less about what happens if we fail, until and unless it 
becomes clear that we are failing. So it's good that you formulated these 
questions and it's good for the Board to think about them, but we should focus 
on our own work. That's all I am saying.

--MM

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:57 AM
To: Milton L Mueller; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Resending Questions to ask the Board

Milton,

With all due respect I think you may have misinterpreted their motion.  Their 
motion states that their proclamation is the baseline approach.  In other 
words, in the absence of consensus in this Working Group, ICANN will proceed 
with the new gTLD process and this resolution IS the baseline.  We need to 
understand what that is and understand what their intent was.  I agree that 
policy should be set in a bottom up fashion, but they are not waiting for this 
group to finish its work before proceeding.

Obviously the Board discussed these questions and we should have some insight 
into the back-door discussions that took place in Nairobi.  We should not wait 
to commence our work, but we deserve answers to these questions.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
________________________________
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.


From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:53 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: Resending Questions to ask the Board

Jeff,
I think your questions are excellent ones, but frankly I don't think we need to 
worry about having the Board answer them. It is our job to make the policy, and 
not the Board's. As I understand it, the Board resolution was intended to pave 
the way for GNSO policy making in this area by "establishing a baseline 
approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move 
ahead."

To wit:

Whereas, the GNSO is in an active policy development process on the issue of 
Vertical Integration, and the Board does not want to create an environment in 
which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with 
the GNSO policy result; and

Whereas, it is important to establish a baseline approach to registry-registrar 
separation for the new gTLD process to move ahead.
This WG should not sit and wait for oracular pronouncements from the Board as 
if they had any direct bearing on what we determine to be the appropriate 
policy, unless there are legal or by-law constraints involved.

--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 9:08 AM
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Resending Questions to ask the Board

All,

Here is the list of questions compiled to send to the ICANN Board regarding 
this resolution passed in Nairobi.  As this stems from a Board resolution, 
resulting from the Board workshop in Nairobi, my strong recommendation is that 
it is sent to the Board (with a cc to Rod).  The list is virtually the same as 
was previously posted with the addition of a new question 1A as revised by 
Jannik.  I look forward to discussing this on the call.

Thanks.

*************************************


1. The resolution states "there will be strict separation of entities offering 
registry services and those acting as registrars"

A.  What is your definition of "entities offering registry services"?

B.  Is that meant to cover just "front end" registries (i.e., those under 
direct contract with ICANN), or back-end as well (eg., those subcontractors of 
registry operators under contract with ICANN).

B.  Would entities offering "registry services", include those that may be 
providing a portion, but not all of the registry services?  For example, if an 
entity is simply providing DNS services for a new TLD, but not the SRS 
functions, would they be considered under the Board resolution to be "offering 
registry services"?  If yes, where in your opinion is the line of demarcation?



2.  With respect to the phrase "...strict separation of entities offering 
registry services and those as registrars":

A. Does this apply to just the new TLD for which a registrar applies to perform 
the registry function or does that mean if you are a registry for one TLD, you 
cannot be a registrar with respect to any other gTLD (new or existing)?

B. Does the term "registrars" apply to resellers of registrars as well or 
literally just registrars





3.  The resolution uses the phrase "No cross ownership will be allowed."

a)  Does this apply to just legal ownership?

b)  What about vertical integration through other means direct or indirect.  In 
other words, some have advocated that restrictions should apply to those that 
exercise some form of control over the registry (i.e., by contract or 
ownership), while others have argued that it should just apply with respect to 
legal ownership?  Which position has the Board decided to take?

c)  Does the cross ownership requirements apply to affiliates or just the 
entity under contract.  In other words, if you have Parent Company A that owns 
Subsidiary B and Subsidiary C.  If Subsidiary B is a registrar and Subsidiary C 
is a registry, would the cross ownership rule apply?  Will this be allowed in 
that the Registrar here does not own any portion of the registry, nor does the 
registry here own any portion of the Registrar despite the fact that they share 
a common parent.



4.  When the Board states, "no cross ownership":

A. Does that literally mean 0% ownership as opposed to the 15% used today in 
the existing agreements?

B. If it literally means 0% ownership, what about those companies that are 
public where shares are traded on the open market.  Could an entity be 
prohibited from serving as a registry if a de minimus amount of shares are 
purchased by a registrar?

C. If it does mean no ownership, will ICANN afford entities a transition period 
to divest registrar shareholders if a registry elects to do so?  In other 
words, would the rule be that prior to launching there can be no cross 
ownership, or is it prior to applying for a new gTLD.


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.