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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I think the point Jeff N. is making - one that I am sympathetic to even while I 
support the idea of phasing - is that incumbent registries ought to be able to 
enter the market with new TLD proposals on pretty much the same basis as 
incumbent registrars and completely new applicants. 
I have a hard time finding any fault with that idea. I don't think it 
interferes with the phasing. You don't need to modify existing policy regarding 
existing TLDs to do that, as far as I am concerned. 

--MM

> -----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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>