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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I find merits in the your comments as well as those of Jeff. I think what
everyone is looking for is predictability: existing contracting parties,
future contracting parties, and end users of the DNS that rely upon ICANN
contracting parties.

This is why an answer from the general counsel on the question of if there
is an existing policy would be most helpful. While I agree with Milton that
this WG is tasking with developing new policy, it would be helpful to
understand the general counsel's position because it does directly impact
existing contracting parties rights/obligations.

There seems to be consensus within the group about creating a level playing
field and spurring innovation. I think all Jeff and his company are looking
for is that same opportunity.

Just my two cents.

Best regards,

Michael

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