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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

I actually find much in the Resolution I like.   Its strict interpretation 
would mean that, for new TLDs,  many existing players could not participate in 
the registry services business.  This would mean a tendency for the new round 
to generate entirely new registry operators.  I can see how that would foster 
the aim of greater competition.

In terms of a baseline I like the language in the MOBI and TEL contracts.  I 
think they provide a balance of consumer protection along with flexibility for 
specific operator circumstances.

RT  


On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Thanks Richard and I know you don't want to concern yourself with the 
> resolution because it is counter to the positions you have taken :)
> 
> But if we do not work from a basline that we all understand, and start 
> suggesting policy from scratch, I do not see how we can get the full 
> analysis, research, etc. done in a matter of weeks.  Even the STI group 
> started with a baseline.  Without it we could have never accomplished what we 
> did in the short amount of time.
> 
> So, what is the baseline we start with?  I am looking for help here from the 
> group.  Where do we start?  
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
> To: Neuman, Jeff; Van Gelder Stéphane <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Roberto 
> Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>; 
> Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Mar 23 19:16:25 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>