ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


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

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4

  • To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4
  • From: "Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:38:26 -0400

 

I think there is agreement that the DAG4 is now the governing language now
versus the Nairobi resolution.  Given this as fact: does anyone feel that
there exists a current ICANN registry that is eligible to apply for new
gtlds?

Care to name who they are?

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 7:52 AM
To: 'ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'richardtindal@xxxxxx'
Cc: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] DAG4


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






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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy