Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
- To: "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
- From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 21:08:21 -0700
After reading the updated Afilias signed proposal I had a question for Afilias
and for PIR.
Reading previous correspondence between Afilias, PIR and both ICANN, GAC and
the US House of Representatives, members of Afilias and PIR made adamant
statements regarding the issues of co-ownership, which do not reconcile with
the current proposal.
In the following letter to Peter Dengate Thrush from Hal Lubsen CEO of Afilias
Mr. Lubsen states the following:
To reiterate our position, Afilias, Neustar and PIR welcome registrars as
registries for new TLDs, and believe they should be permitted to own new TLD
registries and/or providers of technical back-end registry services, provided
they abide by the current rules and are restricted from selling second-level
domain names in their own TLD. Further, we believe ICANN has failed to make an
informed argument for removing that restriction.
In this letter from David Maher of PIR to Hon. Hank Johnson of the US Congress
, http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-johnson-24sep09-en.pdf Mr Maher
states the following:
Statements were made that the registries sought to prohibit registrars from
owning and competing as back end registry service providers. This is not
The registries support competition in the market for new gTLDs and firmly
believe that all qualified back-end registry service providers – including
providers affiliated with ICANN accredited registrars - should be permitted to
compete to serve new and existing gTLDs
Similar statements were made in a letter from the Registries written by David
Maher to the GAC
These statements were made very recently and are very strong statements
supporting competition and the position that Neustar made and continues to
support. That there is no evidence of harms if a co-owned entity does not
distribute the TLD. A position that many in this group, myself included have
moved towards as a compromise and a path forward.
I know this is not a courtroom and you are not on the stand, and I am not even
a lawyer, but I would like to know and maybe you could explain to the WG, why
there is a such a drastic change in position from Afilias and PIR from the
statements above and your long held position.
Sent: Wed Jun 09 18:36:21 2010
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
Reposting the updated proposal which reflects the members of the Working Group
who have indicated their respective support for the positions in the proposal.
Could revise acronym to JRACKBOATDESK.