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

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

Eric,

If we allow an exception for VI to communities, and the community wants to be 
integrated, then we could require ICANN to do the review.  I do not see that as 
an issues provided that we require the review.

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 Tim Ruiz
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:04 AM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Roberto Gaetano
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing


Keep in mind tat there are no specific requirements that must be met to
be designated as a community TLD. It is a self selection thing. The only
time any criteria is applied to such a claim is if there is contention
for a string AND a self-designated community applicant chooses
comparative review. Staff has confirmed that more than once.

So giving community designated TLDs a blanket exception on VI while
everyone else must operate under different rules only creates an
opportunity for gaming.


Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 24, 2010 6:22 am
To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


On 3/24/10 11:24 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
...
> So the question on whether community-based TLDs have a business need to be
> treated differently from general-purpose TLDs does make a lot of sense.


Agree. 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.

Eric