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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Stéphane,

If this is a such a simple question, perhaps ICANN?s general counsel, could
provide a quick yes/no answer.

 

If ICANN?s general counsel cannot provide a simple yes/no answer to this
question, I have serious concerns about us meeting the more aggressive
timelines that we have set.

 

Hopefully the co-chairs could undertake this outreach today and put this
issue behind us.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
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'; 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; '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

 

  _____  

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