Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

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

Antony,

Just a correction without commenting on the substance. We are doing this as 
part of the pdp process. The fact that there is a board resolution is 
irrelevant to this group (as I have been told a number of times when asking 
what the resolution stated).

All, let's not take our eye off the ball. We are doing a pdp here. If we want 
to examine policy about whether or not to have registrars, we should be free to 
do so as we are not bound by recommendation 19 or whatever it was of the new 
gTLD process. That recommendation too is irrelevant to this pdp.

Unlike the sti group, our role is not to respond to the board. Our role is to 
define policy, study its implications, do the analysis and research etc. If we 
want to come up with a phased approach to come up with a short term solution 
and then look long term, we can do that too. But, anything we come up with in 
the short term, must be pretty close to what exists today (with possible 
limited exceptions). Anything else we come up with in a short time period would 
not be consistent with a pdp process.

I also caution all contracted parties (and want to be contracted parties). We 
all live and die by the pdp process. We agree that for things in the picket 
fence to the pdp amending our agreements. The pdp process must be followed and 
respected. To do otherwise sets a precedent that is both unnecessary and 
dangerous. How would people feel if short cuts wre taken on amendments to the 
RAA pdp????

Staff - is there an update on the opening up of the first public comment 
period? Time is running.....
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx


________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: Michael D. Palage
Cc: 'Jeff Eckhaus' ; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri Mar 26 23:15:33 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Consolidated Response to Jeff & Anthony

Micheal,

I thought we were doing this in response to the Board resolution, and I thought 
we were examining what the best solutions might be and proposing something to 
the Board.

But according to you I am mistaken: we are actually acting in response to the 
GAC Communique, or rather, to your interpretation of what it means.  And if we 
don't like your questionnaire, then you will ask the co-chairs to report us to 
the GAC.

By all means, carry on with this if you must.  But your hypothetical examples 
still have problems, which despite your promise to "respond jointly" [sic], you 
have not addressed. Believe it or not my comments were meant to be 
constructive: getting the questions wrong will lead to flawed results.

I don't think Jeff or I said anything about negative about vertical integration 
of single registrant TLDs.  On the contrary, it is perfectly obvious to me that 
there should be. In fact I was wondering why vertical integration shouldn't be 
allowed across the board, and therefore questioning the value of singling out 
one group.

A number of straw proposals have been thrown out for consideration by the 
group.  I thank you and your co-writers for having taken the trouble to add 
your thoughts to those proffered by others, but they are one set among many.  
Can you explain why your proposal is privileged above others, such that 
non-response should be taken as evidence of disobedience to the GAC?  You are 
not the only one to have mentioned single-registrant TLDs.

Antony



On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Michael D. Palage wrote:

Jeff/Anthony,

Let me respond jointly to your concerns.

When ICANN first decided to “revisit” vertical separation, was it done as part 
of the ICANN bottom up consensus process, was it done in connection in the 
original new gTLD PDP? The answer to these questions is NO. It was unilaterally 
undertaken by ICANN staff as part of the new gTLD ”implementation” process in 
response to concerns not from registries, not from consumers, but from 
registrars that were looking to expand their business operations in connection 
with new gTLDs.

Now the CRAI report which was part of the ICANN staff’s implementation process 
specifically referenced two models to move forward in a controlled responsible 
manner. One of those models was single registrant TLDs, and CRAI recognized the 
market inefficiencies in requiring the same entity to secure a separate ICANN 
accreditation to deal with itself. However, no one was happy with these results 
so ICANN then went out and got some new economists that miraculously agreed 
with some of the modified proposals that the registrars put forward in response 
to the CRAI report.

Now when you talk about the limited scope of this Working Group, I would 
respectfully point the both of you to the following excerpt from the GAC 
Nairobi communiqué “The GAC draws attention to the need to explore further the 
regime applicable to single registrant TLDs should they be authorized.”  I 
understand that you both want the new gTLD process to launch ASAP. While I also 
have a number of clients eagerly waiting to submit their applications with 
ICANN, I remain supportive of ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee (GAC) 
advice on the need for ICANN to take some extra time and get it right.

Anthony you may recall in connection with our recent public exchanges in 
connection with the EOI, I firmly believe that the ICANN Board has an 
obligation under its bylaws and the Affirmation of Commitment to consult with 
the GAC on important public policy issues. I believe a number of the hypos 
present clear important public policy considerations.  Now if the consensus of 
this working group is to reject the potential information gathering exercise 
put forth in the survey that Milton, Avri and I jointly developed and if it is 
the further consensus of this group that true vertical integration in 
connection with single registrant TLDs is not under consideration/out of scope, 
then the co-chairs should promptly notify the GAC of this unfortunate 
development.

Best regards,

Michael






From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:45 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the 
consumer

I have been following this line of discussion and reading and re-reading the 
survey and its examples and have hesitated on commenting until the end of the 
“two week period”  but am a little concerned about the direction of the 
arguments and where we are heading.

I understand the need to think outside the box and explore scenarios and do 360 
degree market analysis , but believe we still need to keep within the 
Objectives of this WG. This Working Group is here to analyze and review options 
for registry- registrar separation and equivalent and non-discriminatory 
access. I see the line of questioning here pointing toward an option of not 
having to use an ICANN accredited registrar. This is not an option and believe 
it was resolved with Recommendation 19. The requirement that all new TLD 
registries are required to use ICANN accredited registrar as distributors of 
their service. This should not be a new or offensive thought, since all it 
means is the entity would need to sign and be bound by an RAA.

Now I know there are certain people in this working group that were very much 
against Recommendation 19 and strongly argued against it. I hope that this WG 
is not being used as an avenue to re-open that discussion for people who were 
not happy with the decisions.

I am not saying that we should not undertake analysis and do what this WG feels 
is best for the consumer, but we must focus on the tasks at hand and avoid 
scope creep. I personally have an issue with the question regarding my company 
eNom. While I understand it is hypothetical , I do not see the question 
relating to registry – registrar separation. The question that I am reading, 
and is asking this WG if I am concerned with on Hypothetical # 8 is if it is OK 
for eNom to keep premium names for its exclusive use.  All this hypothetical 
does is put eNom in an unflattering position and not address separation.
While I know there is a disclaimer in the beginning saying that this 
hypothetical and only meant to stimulate conversation, that disclaimer to me is 
the equivalent of saying “With all due respect” right before you insult someone.

I do appreciate the steps to think outside the box and have people look at 
hypothetical scenarios, all I ask we look at ones that are germane to this 
working group.

Thanks

Jeff


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:17 PM
To: 'Michael D. Palage'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the 
consumer

Mike,

I think you’ve nailed my perspective on this matter.  Best interest of 
consumers first.  What improves their experience is what we are after.  What is 
quickly becoming apparent, however, is that one size VI will not fit the myriad 
of possibilities.  How long is that list of scenarios?  When you, Milton and 
Avri created your scenarios, did you have a sense that you covered the spectrum 
of possibilities or were just scratching the surface?

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:15 PM
To: 'Jothan Frakes'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] 360 Degree Market Analysis with a focus on the consumer

Jothan,

I think as a working group we need to undertake a 360 degree analysis of the 
marketplace . Than being said I think the primary focus should be on what is in 
the best interest of consumers.

Getting back to the examples used in the survey. I selected .COMCAST as an 
hypothetical TLD because they are my current ISP of choice. I am generally 
happy with the service that Comcast provides me, therefore why do I need to 
interject another party between me and my ISP? While I would view this as a 
nuisance, what would the impact/inconvenience  be on less sophisticated users. 
In the PENDR Working Group I often used the benchmark of does this proposed 
policy make this easier or more difficult for my mom to use the Internet?

Another hypothetical omitted from the survey was that of a .LAW TLD.  As an 
attorney I pay annual membership fees to the State Bar, it would be a lot more 
convenient for me as a consumer to interact with them to ensure that any 
additional whois elements necessary for my inclusion into the .LAW TLD were 
taken care of by them since they already have that data.  While I am happy 
GoDaddy customer in connection with my  existing gTLD registrations, having 
GoDaddy stand between me and the .LAW registry does not represent my best 
interests, does not increase my user experience, and is likely to impede 
innovation and choice.

Just my two cents.

Best regards,

Michael






From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Looking at this from the Registrars as Channel 
Perspective and that benefit...

Hi-

In our efforts within the VIWG, I have noticed and it has been brought to my 
attention that we're looking at things through the prism angle of the registry.

I am in no way expressing the Registrar Stakeholder perspective on this, nor 
have I vetted this message with them.  I want only to aid the dialog within 
this working group by taking a perspective of the registrar channel into 
consideration in the process of our efforts.

For the benefit of the list activities, I would encourage people interested in 
some of the things that a registrar might be taking into consideration in the 
new TLD launch process
to view a presentation that I did in October of 2008 at the CENTR General 
Assembly in Piza, Italy.

The presentation is from an aggregated applicant perspective and discussions 
that had occurred in Paris at the 2008 meeting and takes into consideration 
bullet points from conversations with many of the applicants and communities 
seeking to apply for new TLDs.

Applicants (not to me confused with registries or registry service providers) 
look to the registrars as a channel to reach a larger audience, adoption, and 
ultimately natural use.  Registrars come in a variety of types of services and 
business models, support a variety of languages, and offer cultural and local 
advantages due to geographical diversity.

Slides 7-10 are related to 'Channel' and worth a look because they focus in a 
little bit on those areas.
https://www.centr.org/main/lib/g1/4622-CTR.html (click download)

I'll caveat the slides to state that there was no DAG available at the time the 
presentation was made, and that presentation predates the 2009 RAA and any 
nuances that it contains which might have changed since would not be reflected.

Still, the information contained in it might prove helpful for our discussions, 
take what you like and leave the rest.

-jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax