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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

 

I think both you and Jeff make valid points. I think the reason to have
answers to the questions Jeff and others raises  is to provide a baseline
for the group to know what happens if we achieve nothing. 

 

I tend to agree with your analysis that the Board has provided the community
a rather Herculean challenge.  However, we do not need to wait to hear from
them while undertaking our work. Let start with the work, and if we reach a
stalemate, the answers to the questions might help provide a motivation to
break the log jam.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:53 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] 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 /
<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  /
<http://www.neustar.biz/> 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.