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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

So that is the interesting part, the resolution could be read in many different 
ways. I know one large existing registry that believes the resolution means 
cross ownership is really allowed but you cannot distribute your own TLD and 
that is how they are moving forward.



I do not agree with their interpretation or the "strict" interpretation below, 
but just shows that everyone has their own interpretation. Some are 
interpreting in a very loose way and nobody is saying they are wrong.





That being said, I agree that we need to move forward with this WG because 
while we would like Staff to clarify the Board resolution there is a good 
chance it will never happen.







Jeff





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Richard Tindal
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:33 PM
To: Neuman Jeff; Van Gelder Stéphane; Roberto Gaetano; Avri Doria; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing





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.

>>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>