RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call

["Austin, Scott" <SAustin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff Newman:

Disclosure of any ownership interest or a controlling interest? The 5%
is usually related to a large enough interest to be possibly
controlling, or obtain certain rights such as calling a special meeting
of shareholders. Many of the entities owning registries may not be US
publicly traded companies. Some may be very privately held not for
profit entities LLCs LPs LLPs Business Trusts or even general
partnerships with no public registration of ownership interests at any
state or federal level. Moreover some states allow formation of entities
with "bearer shares", i.e. the ownership relates to the person or entity
who has possession of the certificate at a given time, which may not be
"of record" on any shareholder list until an actual meeting occurs.
Unless there is a requirement by ICANN for express disclosure or all
accredited registries or registrars having any ownership interest one in
the other, there will be little assurance any limitation on vertical
integration can be enforced.

More importantly is the basis, percentage ownership or otherwise, upon
which an owner in a registry has access to confidential operating
information of the registry, data on who owns what domain name(s)), who
is seeking to own what and what previously owned names have come back
into the sea of commerce - or should soon. To me that is the real issue.
This information, the scope of which is probably best identified and may
only be understood by RSP's and current registry owners should,
therefore, be identified by them for policy purposes as this operating
information relates to the harms on Mikey's list. Abusing that
information, either using it for exclusionary purposes, obtaining
preferential access to be first to the trough, artificially increase
prices to registrants through hording or holding back clearly desirable
second level domains, holding expired domain names in trust for
unidentified 3rd parties and other harms and DNS monetization schemes
too far beyond my experience to note here.


Scott 

Scott R. Austin 
Roetzel & Andress, P.A. 
350 East Las Olas Boulevard
Las Olas Centre II, Suite 1150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Direct Phone No.: 954-759-2768 
Main Phone No: 954-462-4150
Fax No.: 954-462-4260
Email: saustin@xxxxxxxxx 
www.ralaw.com 


Both Scott R. Austin and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be
used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in
error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify
Scott Austin immediately at 954.759.2768. Thank you.


  
Both Scott R. Austin and Roetzel & Andress intend that this message be
used exclusively by the addressee(s).  This message may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.  Unauthorized disclosure or use of this
information is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original
message and notify Scott Austin immediately at 216.870.7954.  Thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:53 PM
To: briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Mike O'Connor'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call


The lowest common denominator here is related to notice.  If no notice
of ownership is required to be filed or even if anonymous ownership is
allowed, then there is no way for the company to be aware of who owns
shares.  Brian, if you are aware of other jurisdictions, please let us
know.  Perhaps Ireland is a jurisdiction you are familiar with, so it
would be good to know there requirements.

In any case, if knowledge were a requirement, then I can live with 2%
(as staff recommended)...

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: Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:46 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Mike O'Connor'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call

Why would you "need" to take the lowest common denominator Jeff.  If a
sovereign jurisdiction has defined the % at a certain level, why should
they be forced to defer to an ICANN rule that adopts a lowest common
denominator?

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:40 PM
To: Tim Ruiz
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call


Yes....and then you need to take the least common denominator.  I
believe the US has one of the lowest reporting requirements (namely
owning more than 5% of a public company requires disclosure).  If there
are lowers, I would love to hear that.  In the end, the 15% does not
relate to control and really is in place to satisfy 1 existing registry
operator.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 1:31 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call

Shouldn't other jurisdictions be considered? Not all existing
registries, and certainly not all of the new ones, will be incorporated
under US law. Same for registrars.

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, June 07, 2010 12:12 pm
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, "Mike O'Connor"
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx"
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


Alan,

If the Afilias proposal is adopted, then there is no reason for 15% and
should rather should be 5% (since that is the minimum that is required
to be disclosed under US Corporate law).

I don't think the Afilias proposal should be adopted, but if it were, it
should be 5% and not 15%.

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 Alan Greenberg
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 12:59 PM
To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] agenda for today's call


I wonder if there is one other thing we can consider giving the time 
left before Brussels?

Although the "mosaic" argument has been made regarding separating 
issues (and I have used it myself on several occasions), perhaps 
there is one important exception.

According to the table, the IPC proposal is the only one supporting 
0% (or perhaps the 2% Board option). All others are at least 15%. Is 
it possible that we can come to closure on this one point - 
specifically to raise the zero/2% to 15%? It does not preclude 
anything else as far as I read the proposals.

Alan

At 07/06/2010 12:19 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:

>hi all,
>
>a pretty simple agenda -- more of a conversation-starter than anything
else.
>
>-- Review agenda -- 5 minutes
>-- Roll call
>-- review the updated proposal-comparison table -- 20 minutes
>-- review the early-draft list of Harms -- 20 minutes
>-- review the draft list of Definitions -- 20 minutes
>-- other business -- 20 minutes
>
>i'll send copies of the three documents to the list as separate 
>emails in a second.
>
>mikey
>
>
>- - - - - - - - -
>phone 651-647-6109
>fax 866-280-2356
>web www.haven2.com
>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
etc.)


Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment 
hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1)
avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or 
(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or 
matter.  This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. 
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.