[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Agreed. More precisely, Salop and Wright admitted that their policy 
prescriptions do not guarantee equivalent access, and questioned whether it was 
necessary.

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 11:50 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Section 4
Importance: High

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.