[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: SRSU

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

It's unfortunate that you're raising this issue now, Jeff.  As this
criterion has been in the IPC's proposal since it was posted 2 months
ago, there would have been ample opportunity for the IPC to consider
revised language that met its goals and addressed your concerns.  Given
that we're 24 hours away from an initial report, I think that window of
opportunity has closed - for the initial report, at any rate.  If you've
got language, send it on and I'll see what I can do about getting it
discussed.

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 11:41 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SRSU

Interesting.  Good thing Neustar's primary line or business has nothing
to do with domain name registration services :)  

But for arguments sake, lets pretend it was Neustar's primary line of
business (which it is not).  Using the criteria established by the IPC
(having the mark registered prior to 11/2008 and in 3 of the 5 ICANN
regions, etc.), I think that leaves Neustar with possible 2 marks:
Neustar and UltraDNS.  Think of all the gaming I could do with a
.neustar or .ultradns.  Those would be hot commodities :)

Of course I am being a little sarcastic, but it just illustrates a point
of paranoia.  

For the record, I do support (and have always supported), the SRSU
exception. But now I must state that if the IPC version is the one that
is put forward by the VI-WG, I would have to withdraw our support for
the exception and would think the other contracted parties would follow
suit as a matter of principal.   The discrimination of 1-class of
applicants for no justifiable reason is not something we should endorse.

Best regards,  


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: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 10:17 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SRSU

Jeff,

The IPC criterion that the SRSU exception not apply to existing
contracted parties is intended to avoid gaming or circumvention of the
exception. (The desire to avoid gaming is behind many of the criteria,
not just that one.)

K



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:53 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SRSU

Thanks Kristina.  I still do not understand the notion of "those
entities whose primary line of business or activity (commercial or not)
is not the selling of second-level domains and whose participation would
be impaired if the VI and CO prohibitions applied."  Kristina, can you
please provide the background on that notion as it only came from the
IPC.  I am not sure what the harm would be for an Afilias, VeriSign,
ENOM or even Mark Monitor would be if they would get their own SRSU TLD
and abide by the rules set.  

Kristina - Unless a good rationale can be provided, I would not want to
see that in the draft.  And again, this is not a comment to benefit
Neustar as our primary business is not the selling of domain names, so I
am really asking for others in the group.

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 Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 12:38 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] SRSU


All,

Apologies for the delay and incompleteness; it's been quite a trip.  The
text below is suggested as a start -- it's definitely not complete.

K

-*-

The WG discussed several specific exceptions to prohibitions on vertical
integration and cross-ownership.  One such exception is for
single-registrant, single-user (SRSU) registries.   Under the SRSU
exception, there is only one registrant of second-level names - the
registry itself - and only one user of the second-level names  - also
the registry itself.

As discussed further below, several types of SRSUs were proposed by
constituencies and WG members.  The Intellectual Property Constituency
(IPC) proposed an SRSU exception for .brand registries, which is
summarized at [page number].[fn:  See  pages ____-____ infra for the
entire proposal.] Several WG participants who are members of the
Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group proposed an exception for [left for
Milton, Avri or others to complete b/c didn't want to inadvertently
mischaracterize or omit any key details] 

The principle rationale for the SRSU exception is to facilitate the
participation in the introduction of new gTLDs by those entities whose
primary line of business or activity (commercial or not) is not the
selling of second-level domains and whose participation would be
impaired if the VI and CO prohibitions applied .  The SRSU structure,
along with the type-specific restrictions, is expected to preclude the
harms attributed to VI and CO.

[Placeholder for more detail about IPC .brand model description.  Scott
Austin or Fred Felman, can you complete?]

[Placeholder for more detail about NCSG model description.]

Critics of/Those WG members of the SRSU exception contend . . .