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

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

Milton and Eric,

You guys are making assumptions and broad sweeping statements without any 
evidence.  The reality is that 99 of the gTLD Registrations (if not more) are 
governed under the same model as .com and frankly I do not see the registries 
for these TLDs asking for any changes to the structural separation rules.  In 
fact, the only entities asking for change are the potential new TLD applicants.

The only conceivable baseline we can start with is the .com, .net, .biz, .org, 
.info, .name model and then work from there.  I am happy to start with that as 
a baseline and then discuss as a group how to eliminate the potential gaming 
solutions (namely, that the contractual language in these agreements allows 
registrars to be registries, but not vice versa).  But to start with any other 
model that would put the existing registries at a competitive disadvantage is a 
non-starter for the Registry Stakeholder Group.  Please do not misinterpret 
that statement.  I am not saying the existing registries should be at an 
advantage....we should just not be at a disadvantage.

The RySG has suggested a model which proposes strict separation for all TLDs 
with exceptions for true community based TLDs, and brand (or single registrant 
TLDs).  Strict separation would be in terms of both ownership and/or control.  
This would allow the small communities (like the ones Eric has been advocating 
for) and entities desiring to use TLDs for their own internal purposes to be 
free to be a registrar, not use registrars, etc. 

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 Milton L Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:44 AM
To: 'Eric Brunner-Williams'; Roberto Gaetano
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing



> -----Original Message-----
> To claim to the contrary would be to claim that there is only
> one business model, implemented with marginally different prices and
> nominally (to make a pun) distinct inventories, the incumbent monopoly
> business model, originally implemented by the COM, NET, and ORG
> operator, and now available in the COM and NET and ORG operators,
> unchanged, and the BIZ and INFO operators.
> 
> We don't want to come out of this with a solution for Verisign's
> market that destroys or prevents all others.
> 

Agree. This WG is about allowing business model innovation in the context of 
the new gTLD round. A lot of damage has been done by assuming that every new 
tld is an aspirant .com, and therefore must be regulated in the same way as 
.com.