Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before our call on Thursday

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

Understood.  This is why I think the molecules confused everyone....too much 
done on the spot with no/little consideration of the words used.

I have not taken the poll yet, so I reserve judgment.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 'mike@xxxxxxxxxx' 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx' <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Jul 14 06:29:06 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before 
our call on Thursday

Jeff:

Correct -- the BRU1 proposal did not have strong consensus of that group on 
that point (probably a 60/40 split in favor in Brussels).  That is clear in the 
poll.  

I do not support BRU2's idea of competition regarding the RSP issue.  It says 
to a registrar or their affiliate that they could be an RSP, but that an 
important distribution outlet (their related registrar) can't sell the names at 
all.  This unfairly would favor the incumbents.  For example, if an independent 
registry operator decided to do an RFP for a back-end provider and they want to 
maximize sales of their names, it would be tough for them to pick a provider 
that restricts distribution vs. one that would have no restrictions at all.  
Couple that with the incumbents advantage already that they have a track record 
in the RSP marketplace, I don't see that as fair competition.  The incumbents 
would be competing against "hobbled" RSPs.  To me, BRU2 is essentially the same 
as a ban of registrars or their affiliates from participating in the back-end 
market at all and a big departure from JN2.  

Thanks.

Jon



On Jul 14, 2010, at 6:03 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

> Jon,
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but when I asked BRU if your RSP proposal had 
> support from your group, the answer was that there was no consensus on that 
> proposal and in fact many disagreed.  I believe Richard labeled it as 
> "interest" in it.
> 
> BRU2 allows registrars to be RSPs, but just not to distribute in any TLD for 
> which it is the RSP.
> 
> I have to say again to this group that the events in Brussels, while I 
> appreciate the attempts, made things much more confusing for a number of 
> people including me.    
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Vice President, Law & Policy
> NeuStar, Inc.
> Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wed Jul 14 05:32:23 2010
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it before 
> our call on Thursday
> 
> 
> Jeff, just a point of clarification.  
> 
> The RACK group did not write BRU1 -- there definitely were folks in the BRU1 
> group who did not support the RACK proposal.  BRU1 was an attempt to bridge 
> the gap between JN2 supporters, the big majority of whom were the registrar 
> members of the WG (see the results of the last poll), and the RACK group.  
> 
> As discussed on the last call and from my perspective, the biggest difference 
> between the RACK proposal and the BRU1 proposal is that BRU1 permits 
> registrars and their affiliates to serve as RSPs if they do not control the 
> pricing, policies and registrar selection process of the registry AND there 
> is a direct contract between ICANN and the RSP.  The agreement would prohibit 
> the RSP from engaging in any favoritism, misuse of data, etc.  It also would 
> include a strict sanctions program, including the potential loss of the 
> ability to be an RSP in that TLD or any other.   As such, the RSP/Registrar 
> Affiliate would be constrained from bad acts by its agreement with its 
> independent customer, the registry operator, as well as its direct 
> accreditation agreement with ICANN.  My hope is/was that BRU1 would receive 
> support from registrars who want to provide back-end services and the folks 
> who supported the RACK proposal.
> 
> The BRU2 proposal does not provide the same opportunity for registrars to 
> serve as back-end providers.  It is much more restrictive.  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
> 
>> A couple of quick comments on the poll:
>> 
>> 1- Awesome job putting this together. It looks great
>> 2 - The opening line of the BRU1 statement begins "There was strong 
>> consensus................" This is misleading as there was strong consensus 
>> of the RACK group that wrote BRU1. None of the other proposals state this 
>> and ask this be corrected immediately as it is misleading
>> 3 - Question 21 asks in addition to 2. Are these questions linked? It seems 
>> they are.
>> 4 - Why are we expressing minority opinions in Question 34? If Kathy 
>> Kleinman is opposed to Question 34 she can answer opposed. The other groups 
>> may have had consensus but I did not hear unanimous consent from other 
>> groups. They did not list all dissenting opinions from each member
>> 5 - I thought that BRU2 allowed self distribution up to the de-minimus 
>> amount , 2% or 5%. may need some help from others in group on this
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Jeff Eckhaus
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
>> Behalf Of Mike O'Connor [mike@xxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 6:40 PM
>> To: Jon Nevett
>> Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] CONSENSUS POLL OPEN -- please complete it 
>> before our call on Thursday
>> 
>> hi Jon,
>> 
>> egad...  what a good idea.
>> 
>> here's a link to a "preview" of the poll -- it looks just like the poll, 
>> except it doesn't collect results.  the only trick is, you have to put 
>> *something* in the required "name" question to get to the next page.  my 
>> favorite answer is usually "sdsdsd"...  your choice.
>> 
>>       http://bit.ly/afCGve
>> 
>> m
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 7:57 PM, Jon Nevett wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Mikey:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your hard work on this.  Would you publish the poll questions 
>>> for review in an e-mail . . . just in case something got lost in the 
>>> translation in one of the questions.
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Jon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for all your hard work on various proposals, atoms, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> i've spent the afternoon cutting and pasting and have a (pretty long) poll 
>>>> put together for you.  i found that i reviewed your work pretty carefully 
>>>> and learned a lot as i put the poll together.  i'm hoping it will prompt 
>>>> you to look through your collective work with "fresh eyes" as you complete 
>>>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> here's the link to the poll
>>>> 
>>>>    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Initial-report-poll
>>>> 
>>>> PLEASE try to complete it by 3 hours before our call on Thursday to give 
>>>> me a bit of time to scratch together a preliminary summary.
>>>> 
>>>> note -- i didn't get updated versions of the SRSU or Compliance writeups, 
>>>> so they're cobbled together from the drafts we had for the Monday call.  
>>>> try to imagine where we might take them as we continue to refine these 
>>>> drafts over the next few weeks (while the public comment period is open) 
>>>> when expressing your support...
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> 
>>>> mikey
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - - - - - - - - -
>>>> phone        651-647-6109
>>>> fax                  866-280-2356
>>>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>>>> handle       OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, 
>>>> Google, etc.)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> - - - - - - - - -
>> phone   651-647-6109
>> fax             866-280-2356
>> web     http://www.haven2.com
>> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
>> etc.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
>> privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, 
>> Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the 
>> intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you 
>> are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this 
>> message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
> 
>