<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
- To: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:52:49 +0200
Hi Mike,
I'm not sure it's a simple question ;) , but I agree that if we can get
guidance on this, it would be useful.
Stéphane
Le 31 mars 2010 à 16:45, Michael D. Palage a écrit :
> 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
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|