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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

To clarify, the same restrictions in com, net, org are also in biz, info, name 
and all of the unsponsored tlds.  I find it hard to justify using a sponsored 
community contract as a baselie, unless we want to say that only 
community-based TLDs may have any for of integration...which is also an option.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue Mar 23 20:04:32 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing


I am in the community and do not believe those are the "base" contracts, I do 
not think the 3 largest gTLDs are a good comparison or baseline to new gTLDs. 

Also do you really think the com./net contracts were crafted with community 
input? As you stated the .tel and .mobi were done without it. These are the 
first contracts that are being crafted with community input .


Most important,  why do we need to choose a baseline contract language? I like 
Richards idea of a starting language that he agrees with and maybe could work 
with , but do not believe we should choose a baseline language here.




Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:53 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing


Perhaps the best baseline is the com/net/org language?  Seems to me that
relevant changes to the language of those contracts over time, including to
.tel and .mobi, were done without much if any substantive community input.
More broadly, I think most people in the community would consider those
agreements to be the 'base' gTLD contracts, from which all others have
morphed divergently over time.

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
http://rodenbaugh.com 


-----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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>