Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Michael Palage <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 15, 2010, at 4:55 PM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:
> 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