RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

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

Under that logic, WHOIS or even having one unique root is not a policy 
either....which I do not believe you will get much agreement on from anyone in 
this group.

I do not believe that this conversation is very productive nor do I understand 
why we are having ths e-mail exchange.   Its an age old debate as to what is 
"policy" vs. what is not.  Whether you call it a policy or current state of 
affairs, the ICANN Bylaws and existing contracts are fairly clear, that absent 
substantial justification, ICANN may not discriminate between registries (new 
or existing) absent substantial justification.

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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:26 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Mueller@xxxxxxx'; 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

I don't agree that's policy. It's a description of the current state of affairs.

The point is, there is no policy.

Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 16:12, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :


Policies, as you know can be established through bottom up development (i.e., 
Domain Tasting Policy) or by contract/historical legacy arrangements (i.e., 
WHOIS).  That said, you can find a good description of existing policy in 
Section 2 of the CRA Report 
(http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/crai-report-24oct08-en.pdf).



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: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:32 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'Mueller@xxxxxxx<mailto:'Mueller@xxxxxxx>'; 
'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

Jeff,

Please point me in the direction of the existing policy on VI, that applies to 
all current gTLD registries.

I have no doubt you know more about this than me, but I have never come across 
this policy.

Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 13:27, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :




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<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>

________________________________
From: Stéphane Van Gelder
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Milton L Mueller ; Jeff Eckhaus ; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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