Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I cant' reconcile this with the questions I recall being asked in the 
first week of this WG's existence, or the importance the 5% in the 
context of US corporations which are publically traded, which you've 
often cited, and if you wanted to explain the basis for this belief 
you would have.
My goal in offering a draft of what the WG understood 70 words to mean 
is not advocacy, but to allow the external reader insight into the 
common, or broadly held, understanding of the problem.
Eric


On 7/19/10 7:52 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> 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