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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

Does Jeff convince you that Verisign should be able to enter the
market with new TLD proposals on pretty much the same basis as any
other vendor?

If not Verisign, with a 25 year head start, but yes NeuStar, with only
a 10 year head start, then when will NeuStar no longer be eligible for
sympathetic equity? In 2025?

Which of these, if any, is relevant to the formation of your sympathies?

        - 87% market share ?
        - 25 year head start ?
        - 2% market share ?
        - 10 year head start ?
        
Eric

On 3/31/10 2:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>