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

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

I did see your note on having minor edits, but to me that seems to be a major 
one.  

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: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 7:21 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Jeff Eckhaus; Neuman, Jeff; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CORE's position

Tim: Of course, neither did CORE's.

Jeff E: Correct.

Jeff N: We differ both in the immediate reading, and in the assumption
that any effort at least difference construction only days before the
PDP reporting horizon prior to the Brussels meeting is to be read
_now_ as a final policy recommendation. Additionally, as I wrote, and
you apparently overlooked, CORE will propose what we believe are some,
minor in our view, modifications.

JC: Please see my correspondence with Volker, in particular, on the
difference in choices of tools to deal with harm, and in fact, the
construct of potential harm.

Eric

On 6/4/10 6:15 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>