RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

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

I am fine with discussing it on the next call or pursuing that strategy, but 
everyone should understand that a later comment period would still have to be 
20 days and not be a substitute or replacement for the public comment period 
after the "initial report" and after the "final report" before council 
consideration.  The longer we wait to start the 1st comment period, the more 
delay that will cause.

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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Margie Milam
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:22 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

Jeff,

The public comment period was on our agenda to discuss yesterday, but we did 
not get to it.   In past PDPs, the working group has been involved with 
crafting questions to be included in the public comment forum, which is 
something that might be beneficial for this working group.  For example, the WG 
might seek comment on specific options for vertical integration for the New 
gTLD Program.   We should discuss this on the next VI WG call to decide how the 
WG would like to conduct the initial public comment period.

Best Regards,

Margie

____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
____________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:43 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

Marika/Margie - If there is supposed to be a 20 day comment period, when will 
that begin?


Thanks

Jeff


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 10:31 AM
To: Jothan Frakes
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

LOL.  Oops - 20 day public comment period :)

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.


From: Jothan Frakes [mailto:jothan@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 1:12 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Jon Nevett; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

Jeff, hopefully you meant to say "20 days of public comment" and not "20 public 
comment periods".  I realize it is somewhat of a nuance to the text but I'm 
turning 42 in Brussels and I was in my mid 20s when this new TLD process began.

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Neuman, Jeff 
<Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Technically, the PDP process requires a 20 public comments period at the 
outset, which I do not believe has started.  I also believe that the Working 
Group needs to spend some time familiarizing how we got to this point as I know 
we have a number of new players.  Everyone needs to understand the concerns 
expressed by all sides in this issue to evaluate any of the proposals submitted.


Best regards,

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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>] On 
Behalf Of Jon Nevett
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 11:16 AM

To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] One Proposal

WG Colleagues:

As I stated last week, I agree with Milton's thinking that we should get on 
with it and see if we can reach some kind of resolution and worry less about 
the Board's potential default position.  I also am not concerned about what we 
look to as a "baseline" -- but am more interested in what we look to as a 
solution.

In the interest of moving this forward, I think that we should take a close 
look at the relevant language in the .mobi, .tel or .asia agreements on these 
points.  I have copied the .mobi language below.  It seems to strike a balance 
between the two sides of the debate that we saw in Seoul.

Section 7.1(c) of the .mobi agreement keeps the .com, .net, .org, .biz, .info 
prohibition on a Registry Operator having more than 15% ownership of a 
registrar, but says that the registry could seek ICANN approval to purchase 
more than 15%.  This kind of language would permit this WG to come up with 
criteria for ICANN to use when evaluating a request for approval to exceed 15%, 
and gives ICANN and the Registry Operators some flexibility when faced with 
certain cases, including new and innovative business models.   As others have 
mentioned, a hard and fast rule would have unintended consequences.

This .mobi language would meet the calls of some in the community to keep the 
status quo.  I think that Jeff Neuman mentioned a concern about using sponsored 
TLD language as a model.  The most recent TLDs, however, sponsored or not,  
will more closely resemble the New TLDs than incumbent registries with millions 
of domain names already under management.

It also would solve the "small registry that has a hard time getting registrars 
to sell its name" issue -- or the community issue that others have raised.  I 
suspect that most folks would not have an issue with a registry that doesn't 
have traction in the marketplace and can't get registrars to sell its names 
starting its own registrar to sell its names.  This language gives some 
latitude for ICANN to approve a waiver for a registry in that position.  Size 
and registrar penetration rates could be factors that ICANN takes into account 
in evaluating a RO's request to start or purchase its own registrar.  
Obviously, there would need to be others.

It also would address the brand or single registrant TLD issue by giving New 
TLD RO's the same ability that certain current RO's enjoy to select among the 
hundreds of registrars based on objective criteria.  Once selected, the RO 
could not discriminate against the registrars selected.  In other words, a 
broad-based registry would want to select as many registrars as possible, but a 
single registrant TLD would not have to select more than one.  As Avri pointed 
out and as the GNSO already has approved, every registration would need to be 
registered with the benefit of the requirements and obligations in the RAA.  
Also, it would maintain the requirement that RO's cannot discriminate among 
registrars selling its names, but not every registrar need to be able to sell 
every extension.

I also would suggest some tweaks to the current .mobi language -- limiting the 
15% only to registrars that sell the registry operator's extension vs. any 
registrar.  This was the position espoused by the incumbent registry operators. 
 Therefore, an eNom-affiliate could apply for a name without violating the 
agreement, but it couldn't sell it through its affiliated registrar without 
ICANN approval.  I also would change the concept of "acquire" to some type of 
corporate affiliation as Jeff N. also suggested.

As far as phasing, if folks like a modified .mobi language, we could agree soon 
on language to insert into the New TLD agreement in DAG 4.  We then could start 
on discussing and debating the criteria that ICANN should consider in 
evaluating waiver requests.

I am trying to get the ball rolling with a way forward that doesn't hold up New 
TLDs and provides ICANN with some flexibility, but doesn't open the floodgates. 
 It also would give ICANN some latitude, but would give the community the 
ability to shape and restrict ICANN's discretion.

I am very open to discussing other proposals as well, but let's minimize 
discussing processes and baselines and work towards solutions.

Thanks.

Jon
.mobi Registry Agreement

Section 7.1   Registry-Registrar Agreement.
a.  Access to Registry Services. Registry Operator shall make access to 
Registry Services, including the shared registration system, available to 
ICANN-accredited registrars. The criteria for the selection of registrars shall 
be as set forth in Appendix S. Following execution of the Registry-Registrar 
Agreement between Registry Operator and the ICANN-accredited registrar, and 
subject to such registrar's compliance with the Registry-Registrar Agreement, 
Registry Operator shall provide operational access to Registry Services, 
including the shared registration system for the TLD. Such nondiscriminatory 
access to such registrars shall include without limitation the following:
                    i.        All registrars (including any registrar 
affiliated with Registry Operator) can connect to the shared registration 
system gateway for the TLD via the Internet by utilizing the same maximum 
number of IP addresses and SSL certificate authentication;
                 ii.         Registry Operator has made the current version of 
the registrar toolkit software accessible to all registrars and has made any 
updates available to all registrars on the same schedule;
               iii.        All registrars have the same level of access to 
customer support personnel via telephone, e-mail and Registry Operator's 
website;
               iv.        All registrars have the same level of access to 
registry resources to resolve registry/registrar or registrar/registrar 
disputes and technical and/or administrative customer service issues;
                  v.        All registrars have the same level of access to 
data generated by Registry Operator to reconcile their registration activities 
from Registry Operator's Web and ftp servers;
               vi.        All registrars may perform basic automated registrar 
account management functions using the same registrar tool made available to 
all registrars by Registry Operator; and
             vii.        The shared registration system does not include, for 
purposes of providing discriminatory access, any algorithms or protocols that 
differentiate among registrars with respect to functionality, including 
database access, system priorities and overall performance.

Such Registry-Registrar Agreement may be revised by Registry Operator from time 
to time, provided however, that any such revisions must be approved in advance 
by ICANN.
b. Registry Operator Shall Not Act as Own Registrar. Registry Operator shall 
not act as a registrar with respect to a "domain name registration" as that 
term is defined in Section 7.2(b) below. This shall not preclude Registry 
Operator from registering names within the TLD to itself through a request made 
to an ICANN-accredited registrar.
c.   Restrictions on Acquisition of Ownership or Controlling Interest in 
Registrar. Registry Operator shall not acquire, directly or indirectly, control 
of, or a greater than fifteen percent ownership interest in, any 
ICANN-accredited registrar, without ICANN's prior approval in writing, which 
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

Appendix S

Part 5

Selection of Registrars

Subject to Registry Operator's compliance with this Registry Operator TLD 
Registry Agreement, including all attachments and appendices thereto (the 
"Agreement") and any Temporary Specifications or Policies or Consensus Policies 
as defined in the Agreement, and provided the scope of the Charter is not 
exceeded:
Registry Operator will select registrars from among ICANN-Accredited Registrars 
in a manner that promotes the following characteristics in the group of 
authorized ICANN-Accredited Registrars:
1. Recognition of the specific aspects of the mobile services community to be 
supported by the sTLD and a willingness to participate in that spirit;
2. Thorough understanding of the principles and goals underlying sTLD policies, 
including without limitation the domain name management policy;
3. Demonstrated ability to provide Eligibility and Name-Selection Services (ENS 
Services) and demonstrated familiarity with the needs of the sTLD Community in 
the language and region(s) served by the registrar, and established modes for 
reflecting these needs in the ENS Services processes;
4. Dedicated willingness and ability to propagate and enforce sTLD policies in 
an observant and diligent manner and in accordance with policies and procedures 
prescribed by Registry Operator;
5. Broad geographic distribution and language diversity of registrars;
6. Established collaborative contact with one or several associations 
representing Providers and Representatives (as defined in Part 3 above) in the 
language and geographical region or sector served by the registrar;
7. Dedicated willingness and ability to act together with the mobile 
communications community in the processing of registration requests.
8. Established business relationships with substantial numbers (proportionate 
to the size of the registrar) of Providers and Representatives in the region(s) 
served by the registrar;
9. Demonstrated willingness and ability to publicize and market the sTLD, to 
follow all sTLD marketing guidelines, and to develop and use sTLD marketing 
materials as appropriate, as reflected by a minimum committed marketing budget 
of an amount proportionate to the size of the registrar;
10. Demonstration that sufficient staff resources are available and able to 
interface with automated and manual elements of the sTLD registry process and a 
willingness to implement modifications and revisions reasonably deemed by the 
Registry Operator to be required based on the characteristics and functions of 
the sTLD;
11. The existence of proven systems designed to avoid submission of unqualified 
or incomplete applications that will burden the ENS system or make it 
impossible for Registry Operator to fulfill its commitments to ICANN;
12. The existence of proven systems to avoid transfer disputes among registrars;
13. Demonstrated willingness to share relevant marketing information with the 
Registry Operator, including, consistent with applicable law, information about 
current registrants with whom the registrar has relationships who are eligible 
for registration.
14. Willingness to provide reduced fee or free services to Providers and 
Representatives from developing countries who meet minimum criteria reasonably 
established by Registry Operator for special assistance; and
15. Willingness and ability to post and refresh a minimum deposit against which 
fees will be drawn.
This Part 5 of this Appendix S specifies the criteria for Registry Operator's 
selection of ICANN Accredited Registrars wishing to enter into a 
Registry-Registrar Agreement to register domain names in the sTLD. Registry 
Operator will determine the initial number of ICANN-Accredited Registrars to be 
selected and, in collaboration wit the sTLD Community, will review and revise 
its selection of registrars and registrar criteria from time to time as 
appropriate.