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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Well, if you already have consensus on this fine.

I still fear that fixing your contract in time will interfere with Obj 6.

a.

On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:57, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> I actually gave you the middle position.  The complete position was whatever 
> happens in new gTLDs must immediately apply to .biz.  The zero position is 
> pretty much yours which is treat them completely separate.  The middle 
> position is whatever you do for new TLDs allow Neustar to do in New TLDs as 
> well (even if not for .BIZ).  The latter is what I am advocating.  Stating we 
> will figure it out later is not an acceptable one. 
> 
> Most of the people on the list have actually agreed with my proposed middle 
> position including some registrars, new TLD applicants and Milton.  I am just 
> not quite sure why you are taking such a hard lined approach.
> 
> 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 1:46 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Having spent over a quarter of a century in business before returning to 
> education and policy, I know a little bit about how it works, but thank you 
> for the tutorial.
> 
> I also know that businesses makes plans based on contingent bases all the 
> time.  And I know they dig in their heels when they want to block forward 
> motion or to gain greater advantage for their negotiating position.  Of 
> course I do not know if any of these are the case in this particular event.
> 
> In this case I am recommending that 
> 
> a. a new policy for ne gTLD application be made
> b. that as soon as that is done, the work of deciding how this was to be 
> applied to incumbent registries and registrars be done.
> 
> Is there any change, other then complete rejection, that you can offer to a 
> middle position?
> 
> Also, I am curious, is the Neustar position on this, the RySG's position?  
> you do seem to speaking as the voice of Registries, so I am curious.
> 
> a.
> 
> Note: I have always enjoyed the phrase  "with all due respect"  and find it 
> is usually used when someone feels that very little respect is due.  I have 
> always thought of it as one of the greatest insults one could sling politely. 
>  it works so much better then you brain-dead toad.
> 
> 
> On 31 Mar 2010, at 13:06, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 
>> Avri,
>> 
>> With all due respect, business plans need to be finalized NOW in order to 
>> apply for new TLDs.  In fact, ICANN requires you submit them with the new 
>> TLD application.  I know you are focusing only on the policy, but its not 
>> like you can make a decision one day and have full implementation the next.  
>> To do so fails to take into consideration that we are talking about real 
>> businesses.  
>> 
>> 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 12:36 PM
>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>