RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

OK, let me try to  clear things up and I will use eNom as an example (all 
numbers , percentages and strings are fictional)

eNom will be the Registrar and DM will be the Registry Services Provider and 
Registry Operator . DM owns 100% of eNom

DM applies for .shoe and will handle all Registry functions just  like Neustar 
does for .biz. Now eNom will not be selling .shoe nor any other Registrar 
affiliates of eNom or DM. Some other registrars will be selling .shoe.

If we could bring this into the existing TLD framework, if Afilias owned a 
Registrar and sold .biz domain names. Would that be an issue? Would there be 
discrimination here?

Hope this clears up the original question and issue I had brought up

Jeff Eckhaus




From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:58 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]


Sorry. Your statment of couldn't you just say a registry can't provide 
registrar services begs the question of who is the registry and leads to 
gaming. This is why you basically state that a campany that owns more than 15 
percent of the registry (or is otherwise affiliated) shall be treated the same 
as being the registry.

Example...demand media forms Registry sub 1 and has ENOM. Rgistry sub 1 is the 
registry. Just saying Registry Sub 1 cannot provide registrar services ignores 
the fact that ENOM can which is the ultimate in loopholes. Therefore, if you 
say that because the registrar or its affiliated entity (Demand Media) owns 
more than 15 percent of the registry, then none of the affoliates should 
provide registrar services.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________
From: Jeff Eckhaus
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Sent: Thu Apr 22 17:49:48 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10]
I hope that was not supposed to clear things up, I am now completely confused

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:47 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]


I think what is being said relates to who is the "registry.". In other words, 
if you own more than 15 percent, then you are considered to be the same as 
being the "registry.". Without that, you have a shell game and can set up an 
organzation called the registry that is affiliated with or has common control.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Sent: Thu Apr 22 17:29:16 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10]
Brian,

Thanks for the submission of your proposal and for keeping it short and simple. 
I am still reading through it and the implications.

I do have one question on the proposal that hopefully you can answer.

You state that the 15% ownership cap avoids creating ownership positions to 
discriminate against unaffiliated registrars. If a Registry did not act as a 
Registrar in the TLD that it owned or provided back end services for, so there 
was actually no affiliated registrar, wouldn’t that accomplish the same goal ?  
Would we still need a 15% cap ?

Thanks


Jeff Eckhaus