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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I tend to agree with Jeff Neumann's latest post on this topic. Why are we 
having this conversation?
Whether you call what's in section 2 of the CRA report "a description of 
current practice" or "current policy," it's our job to make a new policy, and 
if we fail the Board resolution moves us to a place that is markedly different 
from current practice/policy. I see no  need to waste time asking the GC for a 
response, either.

--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:46 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA

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<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