Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Jeff,

I agree with Milton, George and others who suggested on the call we shouldn't 
concern ourselves too much with what the Board Resolution means.  We've asked 
the questions,  let's not spend time now debating what the answers may be.   

If the Resolution can be interpreted in a way you believe is good (in the 
interests of registrants) then you should articulate that position to the WG.   
  You don't need Board clarification to suggest a policy you believe is right.

RT


On Mar 23, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> Stephane,
> 
> Just one clarification.  You state:  "As the total separation solution is 
> probably the least palatable to most people ", I am not sure that all of us 
> agree that total separation is not palatable.  One of the problems is that 
> the Board's resolution was so fraught with ambiguity, that we really don't 
> understand what the Board really meant by total separation.  It is the same 
> issue we have with the existing contracts.  Each person has their own 
> interpretations about what the existing contracts state on this subject.  As 
> the issue has never been litigated, we do not who is right, or if anyone is 
> right.  Hence, the reasons for the questions we drafted.  I know that until I 
> understand exactly what they Board meant in its resolution, I cannot say that 
> their resolution is not palatable and I believe there are others who feel the 
> same way.  I don't mean to beat this issue to death, but there are a lot of 
> assumptions being made.
> 
> Let me give you an example.  I am oversimplifying this example to make a 
> point, so please do not publish this on your blogs....
> 
> Neustar has a contract with an association of telecom carriers to administer 
> local number portability in North America.  The Federal Communications 
> Commission (a US govt agency) requires that Neustar, in this role, must abide 
> by a code of neutrality, meaning that we cannot be "owned" by a 
> telecommunications service provider nor can Neustar own a Telecommunications 
> Service Provider.  This has been interpreted through regulation and contract 
> to mean that Neustar may not own more than five percent (5%) of a 
> Telecommunications Service Provider, nor can a Telecommunications Service 
> Provider own more than five percent (5%) of Neustar.  Moreover, no member of 
> the Neustar Board may own more than five percent (5%) of a Telecommunications 
> Service Provider.  Ownership is defined both by legal ownership as well as by 
> control (by contract or otherwise).  Thus, the FCC for this purpose, has 
> accepted the fact that a 5% or less ownership stake in either direction is de 
> minimus enough to not!
>  constitute any true ownership or control.  These rules were put into place 
> because the Telecommunications Service Providers did not want the entity 
> implementing number portability to also be a service provider because the 
> local number portability provider was receiving sensitive data from each of 
> the telecommunication service providers and did not want the local number 
> portability provider to be in a position to use that data to compete.  Even 
> with neutrality audits, equal access, non-discriminatory access, structural 
> separation, etc., that was not deemed enough for the telecom industry to 
> allow Neustar to be able to compete with the Telecommunication Service 
> Providers in the provision of telecom services.  We even have to enforce 
> these restrictions as a public company.
> 
> Now before people argue that the domain name system market is completely 
> different for X,Y and Z reasons (and they would be right), I just point out 
> this example to state that strict separation, depending on how it is 
> implemented, may be palatable for some.  Or it may not be.  That is what this 
> group, the ICANN community and the Board must decide.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:11 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 
> My read of the Board resolution is that if this group does not produce 
> deliverables in time to include them in DAGv4 and final AG, then the Board 
> will go with its current total separation stance.
> 
> That to me is a clever way to 1) get all those people with strong and diverse 
> opinions on VI whom so far have found it impossible to agree on anything to 
> try and reach consensus and 2) make sure that if they don't, a solution is 
> there meaning that this overarching issue will no longer delay the new gTLD 
> program.
> 
> As the total separation solution is probably the least palatable to most 
> people, option 1 may stand a good chance.
> 
> One solution might be phasing, as long as it is as Avri suggests: i.e. we 
> work on a "quick solution" for round 1 and are able to leave certain issues 
> that we would find more complex to agree on aside for later policy 
> development.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 23 mars 2010 à 22:13, Roberto Gaetano a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> I am glad you are explaining in detail the phasing concept.
>> Seen this way, as a tool to get something done quickly ("getting the low
>> hanging fruits", for instance, but not limited to that), while not being
>> delayed by discussions on matters of principle, or just on more complicated
>> issues, it can be a good way to achieve results.
>> Of course, the question is then on what will be part of "release 1" and what
>> will be postponed, and whether "release 1" is still meaningful, i.e. whether
>> it has "enough fruits".
>> I assume that the role of the co-chairs might be relevant in shaping what is
>> in the scope of the first release, but I also hope that we will have
>> substantial support from the team.
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 19:08
>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> As one of those who spoke in favor of phasing, let me explain myself.
>>> 
>>> In any phasing, dealing with recommendations for the current 
>>> round should be phase I and should be completed as quickly as 
>>> possible without any deviations for side issues.
>>> 
>>> If, on the other hand there are more complicated issues that 
>>> we want to consider with relation to incumbent practice or 
>>> what would pertain in future rounds that is the stuff I would 
>>> recommend for a second phase.  Additionally, if for example 
>>> we decide on a set of practices that are ok for this current 
>>> round, but then decide that we want to consider what happens 
>>> when conditions change and the registry wants to change its 
>>> model , that is an issue I would defer to a second phase.  On 
>>> the other hand if we set a bunch conditions related to 
>>> co/cross ownership for new first round registries and want to 
>>> consider allowing an incumbent to adopt that model, that too 
>>> is something I would recommend pushing off to a later phase.  
>>> BTW, I would not be surprised in some of these hypothetical 
>>> issues required going back to the GNSO for a charter renewal 
>>> at some point (not recommending that for now).
>>> 
>>> In short I recommend phasing and the creation of a phase II 
>>> so that we have a place to put any issue that comes up that 
>>> does not immediately affect the current new gTLD process.  
>>> For all of the stuff related to this round - I hope we have  
>>> our recommendations in time for Brussels, if not before.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>