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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I understand the point you are making about Neustar's needs.  It is still the 
case that there would be up to a year before your contracts would need to have 
been changed and still the case that finding the mechanisms by which those 
changes can be made is more complex and time consuming then establishing 
policies for this  gTLDs round.

It is also possible that most of the changes made, if any, may only relate to 
the single registrant class, in which case the effect should be minimal.

So I still recommend we see what changes get made, and then figure out how to 
reach an acceptable state of parity.

a.

On 31 Mar 2010, at 11:47, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Your model below to me relates to the question of Neustar for example being a 
> registry and registrar for .biz, but misses the important notion that our 
> current contract prohibits us from doing anything differently for any new 
> TLD.  So if you recommendation is that with respect to .biz that may be a 
> phase 2, we can explore that.  However, if your recommendation is that even 
> with respect to Neustar being treated the same as other registries with 
> respect to New TLDs is a Phase 2, that is NOT something we can compromise on. 
>  Even with respect to the latter, the current agreements need to be amended.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:32 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As someone who sits outside the Registry-Registrar bi-polar conundrum on this 
> issue, I would like to explain my view of why this is a phase 2 activity and 
> make a recommendation.  I hope this can be seen as a basis for a compromise 
> position of sorts.
> 
> Background thoughts:
> 
> 1.  Contracts do establish a de-facto policy.  Not all policy is bottom up 
> policy. And not all de-facto policy is straightforward or easy to identify.
> 
> 2.  Charter Objective 6: To perform the PDP activities in a manner that does 
> not delay the launch of the New GTLD Program.
> 
> 3 .   The de-facto policy is very complex in that each contract has a 
> different variant - though they are based on a common set of principles.  To 
> modify this de-facto policy to match a bottom up policy taking this 
> complexity into account may take a while and may extend beyond the schedule 
> needed to meet Obj 6. Additionally further issue-report work may be required 
> to establish a well formed basis for a PDP affecting existing contracts.
> 
> 4.   It will be a while before new registries have any market advantage over 
> the incumbents.  In fact if we meet the Brussels timeframe for a policy 
> recommendation for new gTLD that can be folded into an Application Guidebook, 
> it will still be another year (at least) before we have new registries.  This 
> is more then enough time for the task described in (3) above.
> 
> Recommendation
> 
> As part of the Phase I policy recommendation relating to new gTLDs, made in 
> time for Brussels, include a request for any necessary further issues-report 
> and a recommended update to the charter that is specific about the need to 
> bring current registry policy into line with the newly recommended policy for 
> new gTLDs including any transition considerations that may be required.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
>