[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: SRSU

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

Milton,

I don't understand.  If I want to have a .neustar (which is a trademark of 
ours), and only use it on a corporate level to give addresses out like 
"mail.neustar" or "support.neustar" or give my employees their own .neustar 
address, I need to use a re registrar???  Even though a Google or a Yahoo could 
do it?

Seriously Milton...your support of an exclusion of registries and registrars 
from legitimately having an SRSU exception defies any sense of logic especially 
coming from someone who favors opening the whole thing us.

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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Rosette, Kristina; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: SRSU

I don't understand this, Jeff N. It seems uncharacteristically unreasonable. 
If we are in an "exceptions" procedure (which is forced on us by incumbent 
registries and registrars who are worried about encroachment on their markets 
by other actors) then clearly a major registry or registrar is not an 
"exception." You are already well-ensconced in the dns registration business 
and don't need exceptions to get into it. This is just common sense. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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,
>