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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well it's just that, discussion.

You stated there is a policy. I don't know of one. That's the only point I'm 
making.

But my reaction is based on your assertion that current registries should not 
be discriminated against. I didn't understand if you felt this was currently 
the case, hence your reference to an existing policy that I don't know of, or 
if you were just sending out warning signs on a possible future situation.

Sorry, perhaps I should have made that clearer.

Stéphane

Le 31 mars 2010 à 16:34, Neuman, Jeff a écrit :

> 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'; '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
>  
>