RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: SRSU

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think that the release of the report is not the end of the game, just half
time break.
There will be plenty of opportunity to trim the details while the papers are
out for public comment.
R.
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> Sent: Friday, 16 July 2010 05:46
> To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: SRSU
> 
> 
> 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 . . . 
> 
>