Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Status report from the writing team

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon,

The JAS is attempting to create, or at least not inhibit, through its 
characterization(s) of "support" for applicants, diversity, a value 
articulated by the Board at Nairobi (and subsequently).
Ignoring the competition policy issue, one could claim that this goal 
could be met by requiring, by arbitrary means, the entire cohort of 
applicants to use Verisign's Atlas backend, and allowing each 
applicant to maintain a formal incorporation identity and some sales 
and marketing presence in the "local" market area. "500 different PO 
Boxes in 200 jurisdictions" would be the diversity claim.
Without a loss of generality, expanding the allowed vendors of 
registry backend services to {Afilias, NeuStar, CORE, ...} is a change 
without substance.
This isn't a claim the JAS has found attractive, and in the current 
draft you can find language that attempts to restrict the 
qualification for support to applicants with more than a symbolic or 
marketing and sales connection to the populations to be served.
Only .museum and .cat are jurisdictionally distinct from the remaining 
19 gTLDs. A US originating National Security letter, injunction, 
warrant, ... may only have effect upon them through the ICANN registry 
agreement as a consequence of private contract. All other registries 
have a US presence sufficient to support personal jurisdiction 
directly, without recourse to enforcement of a private contract.
That is a diversity issue.

Mind, it was a non-goal in the 2004 round, just as it was in the 2001 
round, to obtain any diversity goal other than "more gTLDs not 
operated directly by Verisign", a goal that would improve the current 
competition policy climate considerably.
Eric