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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

See also my response to Statton Hammock, of May 14th, in the "VI -  An
RSP Question" thread.

On 6/4/10 9:58 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
>