ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

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

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] JN2 summary in under 200 words
  • From: Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:57:55 -0700

agree


On Jul 19, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> 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