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

["Michele Neylon :: Blacknight" <michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24 Mar 2010, at 00:29, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 
> 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.

And would that be a bad thing?

(not that I'm saying it's a good thing either .. just asking .. )


> 
> 
> 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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business  
Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845