ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] JN2 summary in under 200 words

  • To: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] JN2 summary in under 200 words
  • From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:54:02 -0700

Richard - I am sure you will take your pen and your edits to the submitted RACK 
proposal since it includes many perceived benefits. Statements such as "This 
cross ownership approach allows both registry operators and registrars to 
invest in domain name wholesale and retail businesses thus stimulating growth 
in the industry."

Thanks

Jeff Eckhaus


________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Richard Tindal [richardtindal@xxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 9:25 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] JN2 summary in under 200 words

Per the earlier email dialogue,  i think we need to keep these summaries 
strictly as statements of the features of each proposal.  The second sentence 
(below) is a clear statement of intended benefit and a criticism of other 
proposals.  Also, it is confusing to readers as JN2, RACK, Free Trade and other 
proposals all prevent registrars from applying - due to the structural 
separation requirements of those proposals.

All the perceived benefits and value of a proposal will be in the Attachment 
for that proposal where it will be clearly identified as coming from the 
proposal advocate.  What's in the body of the report has the implied agreement 
of the WG.    Unless we want to turn this into an exercise where everyone tries 
to slip in their favorite words for their proposal I think Section 6 should 
simply be a factual statement of the proposals features.

RT


Anything that is in the body of the report is a reflection
On Jul 19, 2010, at 8:36 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:

Please find my short summary of the JN2+ proposal:


The JN2+ Proposal is intended to restrict Registry Operators and their 
affiliates from distributing names within  the TLD for which Registry Operator 
or its affiliate serves as the Registry Operator.  That said, it recognizes 
that any proposal that outright prohibits a class of entities from applying to 
be a Registry Operator is not in line with ICANN’s mandate of promoting 
competition set forth in the ICANN Bylaws. Therefore it allows registrars (and 
their affiliates) to be Registry Operators provided they agree to not 
distribute names within a TLD for which they or their affiliates serve as the 
Registry Operator.  The JN2 contains definitions of affiliation which includes 
both ownership (> 15%) and control (direct or indirect) and allows exceptions 
for single registrant TLDs, community TLDs and Orphan TLDs.  For the first 18 
months, restrictions apply towards back-end registry service providers (RSPs) 
that control policies, pricing or selection of registrars  and resellers 
affiliated with the Registry Operator or RSP.  After such time, they may 
petition ICANN for a relaxation of those restrictions depending on a number of 
factors.


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.



Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy