<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4
- To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:50:04 -0400
Also, where did this addition come from? It is completely inaccurate. They
responded that equivalent access was NOT necessary and did not provide an
economic benefit. They never said it was a policy issue for the GNSO to
consider. This paragraph needs to be taken out!!!!
It should be noted that Professors Salop and Wright were asked about
"Equivalent Access," and the impact their proposed changes would have on
Equivalent Access, in a discussion with the Working Group members. They
responded said that they had not considered the issue. ICANN's Equivalent
Access provisions of registry contracts require gTLD registries to treat all
ICANN-accredited registrars equally, and provide registry data, service,
technology and support on an equal basis to all registrars. It is a policy that
the GNSO adopted in its Principles, Recommendations & Implementation Guidelines
(October 22, 2008) with "support from all GNSO Constituencies:"
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: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:48 AM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Section 4
I thought we all agreed on the call (at least everyone but 2 people) to
eliminate Section 4 of the Initial Report. We agreed to include a reference to
Salop and Wright in the background and that we had a call, but to restate their
positions, which can be read in their report, and to call it an "evaluation" by
the VI-WG is not appropriate as that is not what happened.
The ONE thing this group has ever had consensus on was the removal of that
section in its entirety!
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 /
jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx> /
www.neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
________________________________
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|