RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal

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

Our two year transition period proposal is in line with the JN2 proposal 
(albeit now is 18 months in terms of trying to compromise).  If anything, we 
are the only party being consistent here.  As I stated in Sydney, Neustar 
welcomes competition in the registry business and specifically encourages 
registrars coming in.  Our only restriction during the transition period was in 
distribution in the same TLD you were the registry or registry service 
provider.   Remember, we said we should have registrars become registries, 
registries become registrars (just not in the same TLD).  Then after 2 years 
(the transition period), everyone would be on a level paying field so that if 
they wanted to open it up completely, we could all compete fairly.

Interesting spin you have put on all of this Brian, but we have not reversed 
our position at all…….  This was our position then, and is still our position 
today.


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.


From: Brian Cute [mailto:briancute@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:19 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx; eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal

Jeff,

Since you have been one of the most vocal  critics of the gaming that has taken 
place in the market and the enhanced gaming that will take place with access to 
registry data, I am somewhat confused by your recent position.  Moreover, since 
you/Neustar have been asking ICANN for a 2 year period to allow existing 
registries to integrate – while delaying the new round and at the same time 
preventing registrars from integrating – I find your “anti-competitive” 
protestations interesting.  This is not a position we have supported.  ICANN’s 
current policy and contractual regime prohibits registries from getting into 
the registrar business.  You have complained loudly about this regime but it is 
in place for many sound reasons and it has created a very competitive market 
with lower prices for registrants.    The proposal that we support would 
similarly continue to provide protections for registrants and would prevent 
enhanced gaming of the system.

Regards,
Brian

From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 7:36 AM
To: 'alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx'; 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 
'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal

Alan,

I think what Jeff E points out is incredibly important. The RySG as a whole 
recognized by Supermajority support that our goal was not to be prevent 
competition at all, but impose reasonable limits and welcoming all to compete 
with us on a level competitive playing field. Afilias, PIR, Neustar and others 
voted to support that notion. Preventing all forms of competition by certain 
entities was not our goal, and in fact, we wee so enraged by the implication 
ICANN staff made about us not allowing competition, we actually wrote a letter 
to Congress to be included in the official testimony and required icann to 
apologize to us publicle for making that implication. Yet that is the same 
implication that now appears in the RACK+ proposal.

Alan/CLO and anyone else signing the RACK proposal, let's work on your fears 
and make suggestions on what can be done from an enforcement perpective. I 
would be happy to work on that. Otherwise, for me, I would rather have the 
staff proposal of 2 percent than the RACK one of 15 percent. The 2 percent is 
to protect against a de minimus unintended consequence, wheras the 15 percent 
is meant to protect an existing player against a fully intended consequence. 
That existing player can put whatever new spin they want on this, but the fact 
of the matter is that the existing player voted in favor of allowing registries 
and registrars to compete (without distribution in the TLD).

Can minds be changed? Sure, but the question then is why? What new evidence 
came to light about potential harms to registrants caused Afilias and PIR to 
change their tune? I really want to know because perhaps I am in the wrong 
here. I am not too proud to admit that I was wrong, but I need to know why I 
was wrong.


Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu Jun 10 01:04:54 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI proposal
Jeff, you addressed your question at Brian, but I will give my thoughts on this.

As I have said both privately to you, and publicly, I generally support the 
concept of ICANN accredited registrars acting as gTLD registries or RSPs under 
certain conditions which would certainly include (but not be limited to) not 
trading, directly or indirectly, in their own TLDs.

But I do not feel comfortable doing that now, prior to thoroughly identifying 
what *detailed* other conditions are required to ensure that there can be a 
high level of confidence that the public interest will be served. This is, in 
my mind, a situation there the devil *is* in the details.

As mentioned in my previous note on this subject ( 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01709.html), I suspect that 
significantly strengthened ICANN-Registrar contracts with appropriate penalties 
and auditability would be a component of this. I see no other way to ensure 
that needed safeguards are in place without the need to grow ICANN compliance 
operations by one or more orders of magnitude.

In ICANN, we talk about Registries and Registrars both being "contracted 
parties". But those contracts are vastly different. As a small example, can you 
imagine a registrar having to follow a process equivalent to the RSTEP process, 
including public comments, before the registrar could offer a new service?

If we could get some level of consensus that the Board/staff default is not 
preferred to the proposal that Brian last transmitted, perhaps we could then 
start looking at what we can do to address the exceptions that many want (and I 
include your desire to allow registrars to operate as Registries/RSPs as one of 
these exceptions) prior to the final AG being issued.

Alan


At 10/06/2010 12:08 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

Brian,

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 
, http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lubsen-to-dengate-thrush-12oct09-en.pdf 
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 
correct.

The registries support competition in the market for new gTLDs and firmly 
believe that all qualified back-end registry service providers – including 
providers aaffiliated 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 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-karklins-25sep09-en.pdf

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.

Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
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.