RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] CORE's position

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The proposal is actually a morph of sorts of the Afilias/PIR/GoDaddy
proposals - what's left is more or less where they intersected/agreed.
The Go Daddy proposal did not include any exceptions.

Tim  
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] CORE's position
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, June 04, 2010 5:09 pm
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, Eric
Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


I believe the latest Afilias proposal was even more restrictive and
removed the community, orphan and brand exceptions so there is not even
that option 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Eric Brunner-Williams; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] CORE's position


Eric,

I am very surprised by CORE's support for the Afilias proposal. Correct
me if I am wrong, but isn't CORE an accredited Registrar? And aren't
they also interested in being a back-end registry service provider for
new TLDs? Unless I read the Afilias proposal incorrectly, the Afilias
proposal would prohibit you from being such a registry service provider
for new TLDs unless CORE divests 85% of its registrar business (or
alternatively keeps its registrar business and only owns 15% or less of
the registry service provider entity).

Remember, the exceptions in Afilias' proposal would still not cover you
as his proposal is cross TLD. In fact, its probably unintended, but
Afilias proposal would allow you to be a registrar in your own TLD (if
community, orphan, brand...), but it would not allow you to be a
registrar in any other TLD. 

For example, lets say CORE is a back-end operator for .berlin and lets
assume that falls under one of the exceptions. You could serve as a
registrar up to a certain number in .berlin, but under the strict
wording, you would have to still divest the rest of CORE's entire
portfolio of domain names in every other TLD. I understand this was
probably unintended, but it is one of the reasons the whole cross-TLD
language does not work.

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 Eric
Brunner-Williams
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 5:10 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] CORE's position


Colleagues,

This should come as no surprise, CORE supports the proposed text which
Brian Cute is the editor, with some, minor in our view, modification.

For the purposes of expressing a general policy position, to be
settled in all of its details after Brussels, but before Cartagena,
Brian's proposed text meets our meta-goal of continuity, stability,
and and competition, between existing, and entering, for-profit and
non-profit, generic TLD registry services platform operators, and the
least barrier to entry for new for-profit and non-profit registry
operators, particularly those which are community-based, and non-profit.

CORE's proposed modifications to the proposal which Brian edits on
behalf of all of its adopters will be made as a separate proposal.

Eric