Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

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

I disagree with this completely.  We believe the Nairobi resolution does not 
exclude most of the current registries, including Neustar.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx



----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Jul 19 07:30:45 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10]   DAG4


Richard,

A salient detail is the difference between the Nairobi policy and the 
DAGv4 proposed policy relative to the existing registry contracted 
parties.

The WG understood the Nairobi policy excluded all current registries 
due to nominal and substantive ownership interests by current registrars.

That is present in the draft Nairobi summary I sent earlier.

The WG understood the DAGv4 proposed policy excluded only those 
current registries for which a 2% ownership interest is held by 
current registrars. Because of market capitalization, the WG 
understood that at least one, and perhaps three, of the current 
registries could, under the DAGv4 proposed policy, apply for 
additional registry contracts and offer registry services to 
third-party applicants for registry contracts.

Absent this, the public comment readership may not appreciate there is 
a competition policy issue present in the DAGv4 proposed policy, as it 
qualifies some registriess and disqualifies other registries, for a 
cause not self-contained in the DAGv4 text, and at odds with the 
Nairobi text.

Eric