RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff is right here, and I agree that the section should be removed and
treated as Jeff describes (as I thought we agreed to).

Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:50 am
To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, 
"gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

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  / 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.