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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

To be fair and accurate,  the full quote was "If you want to change this 
language, Jeff, there will be no .BIZ"

RT


On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:27 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Stephane - your assertion that there is no policy is wrong. In fact, the one 
> element each of the flawed economic reports does get right is reiterating the 
> existing policy.
> 
> Also, if you think any unsponsored registry (other than .pro) had a choice in 
> negotiating any part of the VI policy (other than minor tweaks to the 
> language), that too is incorrect. In fact, I believe the words that were used 
> were something to the effect of ""if you want to change this language, there 
> will be no .biz.". Even Richard Tindal, who was a part of those discussions 
> when he was with Neustar, can attest to that. 
> 
> And to be more direct - existing registries that want to be new tld 
> registries would have to agree to the new agreements for those new tlds. But 
> we need to allow the existing registries to be in a position to do that ata 
> minimum, which would fall under the question below stating allowing Neustar 
> to be a registry for new tlds with same provisions applicable to new tlds on 
> vI (which would requre a change to the existing .biz agreement).
> 
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
> Vice President, Law & Policy 
> NeuStar, Inc. 
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder 
> To: Neuman, Jeff 
> Cc: Milton L Mueller ; Jeff Eckhaus ; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> Sent: Wed Mar 31 05:41:45 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Question to WG on RAA 
> 
> 
>>  
>> Bottom line is that it would be unacceptable to Neustar to allow new TLD 
>> registries to be able to do things that  Neustar is restricted from doing.  
>> To do so would not only violate our existing agreements, but the ICANN 
>> bylaws as well.  So when Jeff E. talks about 2-way streets, we need to make 
>> sure that the streets are really 2-ways and not 2-ways for registrars, 1-way 
>> for existing registries.
>>  
> 
> Jeff, there is currently no policy regarding VI. So each gTLD registry 
> contract is unique and has its own clauses. Are you saying you would like to 
> see all existing gTLD registries bound by the same contract that is being 
> drawn up for new gTLD registries?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane