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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have to disagree with Jeff on one point.  He seems to imply that because this 
is a PDP, we have free reign to raise any policy issues.  That is not the case. 
 We are a working group chartered by the GNSO Council, and our discussions need 
to be constrained by that charter.  If the Council wanted us to revisit its 
decision in Recommendation 19 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm), it 
would have specifically said so in our Charter 
(http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-chartered-objectives-10mar10-en.pdf).
   It didn't.  

I think that we need to put this on our agenda for our next meeting to 
determine whether folks on this WG think that we should be re-tackling this 
divergent issue, or whether there is a consensus on not spending cycles 
re-arguing Council's decision in Recommendation 19.  If there are enough folks 
on the WG who want to re-open the issue and believe that Council intended us to 
review its decision in Recommendation 19, then we should send a clarifying 
question to Council similar to the questions we asked the Board to determine if 
that is the case.    

Cognizant of Objective 6 in our Charter ("Objective 6: To perform the PDP 
activities in a manner that does not delay the launch of the New GTLD 
Program."), I would hope that the answer of the WG and Council (if necessary) 
would be to focus specifically on the vertical integration/cross ownership 
issue and not use this PDP as an opportunity to re-open pet issues that already 
have been decided, thereby causing a delay in our work.

Thanks.

Jon


On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:20 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 6:45 PM
>> To: 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Ron Andruff
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 2:17 PM
>> To: 'Michael D. Palage'; 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:15 PM
>> To: 'Jothan Frakes'; 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] 
>> On Behalf Of Jothan Frakes
>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:28 PM
>> To: 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
>