<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
- To: "'stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx'" <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 07:27:26 -0400
Stephane - your assertion that there is no policy is wrong. In fact, the one
element each of the flawed economic reports does get right is reiterating the
existing policy.
Also, if you think any unsponsored registry (other than .pro) had a choice in
negotiating any part of the VI policy (other than minor tweaks to the
language), that too is incorrect. In fact, I believe the words that were used
were something to the effect of ""if you want to change this language, there
will be no .biz.". Even Richard Tindal, who was a part of those discussions
when he was with Neustar, can attest to that.
And to be more direct - existing registries that want to be new tld registries
would have to agree to the new agreements for those new tlds. But we need to
allow the existing registries to be in a position to do that ata minimum, which
would fall under the question below stating allowing Neustar to be a registry
for new tlds with same provisions applicable to new tlds on vI (which would
requre a change to the existing .biz agreement).
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Milton L Mueller ; Jeff Eckhaus ; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed Mar 31 05:41:45 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
Bottom line is that it would be unacceptable to Neustar to allow new TLD
registries to be able to do things that Neustar is restricted from doing. To
do so would not only violate our existing agreements, but the ICANN bylaws as
well. So when Jeff E. talks about 2-way streets, we need to make sure that the
streets are really 2-ways and not 2-ways for registrars, 1-way for existing
registries.
Jeff, there is currently no policy regarding VI. So each gTLD registry contract
is unique and has its own clauses. Are you saying you would like to see all
existing gTLD registries bound by the same contract that is being drawn up for
new gTLD registries?
Thanks,
Stéphane
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|