Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric,

You seriously do not need to hurl insults when trying to make a point and to be 
honest I am not sure I understoodt what your point was.  The concept of an 
audit is not North American, but also has many roots in European and Asian 
agreements as well.  I can only speak of Neustar, but many of our agreements 
with European entities such as the the telecom carriers (both mobile and 
wireline), gsma, DNS customers, tLD registries, and countless other entities 
all have audit provisions of one sort or another.  

To make a blanket statement that audits are a north american creation is 
uninformed at best.  In fact, some of the tightest audit requirements we have, 
including SAS-70 audits are with customers outside of the US.

And to Antony - Registries are providers of critical resources to serve the 
public.  Requiring audits to be performed does not seem to onerous for real 
entities that build real platforms to sign up to.  Its something Neustar signed 
up to on day one when we too were just an upstart.  Although you think of 
Neustar as some huge public company, please remember we didn't start out that 
way.  We survived and I have no doubt that other serious registries will do the 
same. 
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Apr 15 19:07:05 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences


Well ...

CORE has raised the disproportionate cost of a several items in the
proposed registry agreement, and as we just happen to be doing an
audit under Swiss law and accounting rules, the careless use of
"audit" when we haven't yet really agreed what it is we (that's us,
we're writing the policy recommendation) want measured, and what we
want to be the standards of measurement.

In an earlier note I mentioned this to Jeff N, who I thought would
pick up the issue of carefully crafting something rather than
carelessly throwing around "audit", and then all of us, in North
America and elsewhere, being stuck with it due to Staff's
comfort-level with US-centric definitions.

So some control, we don't yet know what, nor how useless or
burdensome, nor how beneficial.

If there's the choice between acquiring 15% (plus or minus) in a
registrar and some exception, as PIR has proposed, any application
which is exception-qualified (an as yet undefined term) is free to
chose either mechanism.

But I'm pleased to see another reason why .cat has failed so
miserably, because we submit monthly reports to ICANN.

Were you really expecting a policy maker's greenfield? No scars of the
past decade(s) of there having been policy?

Cheer up, this isn't so bad, no worse than any other PDP, and as
platform providers, these are just problems we have to solve.

Eric