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

["David W. Maher" <dmaher@xxxxxxx>]

Avri:
The Registries Stakeholder Group is on record as supporting 
application of any new policy on vertical integration fairly without 
prejudicing existing registries.
That does not specifically answer your question about a 2 phase 
policy development process.
My position is that I oppose a 2 phase process.
David Maher
Senior Vice President - Law & Policy
.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

At 12:45 PM 3/31/2010, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >