<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 - PLEASE REVIEW by Friday May 20
- To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 - PLEASE REVIEW by Friday May 20
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:59:56 -0400
Eric,
Although I was the messenger of the RySG statement, I object to the implication
that I am behind any or all of the content. I also strongly object to your
comments on what the existing registries have done or what our motivation are.
I caution you and the group not to take these comments into consideration as
they are not true and in my opinion are defamatory & slanderous, so please
refrain from these types of discussion on the list. They are not helpful and
do not advance all of our interests in making sure that assistance is provided
to new gTLD registries who may not otherwise have the ability to apply.
Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
Please note new address: 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 20166
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.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 12:48 PM
To: Cintra Sooknanan
Cc: Karla Valente; SOAC-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 - PLEASE
REVIEW by Friday May 20
Cintra, Colleagues,
I appreciate that the text has been sent to the GNSO Council already.
In asking "Assuming the fees are reasonable with regard to services
provided to registries, would other registries be expected to make up
the deficit? Or does the WG believe the fees are too high? If the
latter, was any analysis done to support that position?", Jeff Neuman
asks us to accept an assumption.
The unstated assumption is that all registries are the same, that all
are "like" the com/net/org/biz/info business model.
Jeff doesn't ask us if ICANN has a higher cost, if it doesn't provide
more "services" to problems caused by profit maximizing operators, to
unrolling .biz's illegal sunrise lottery, to stopping .com's wildcard
"registry service", aka "Site Finder", to studying, and finally
stopping domain tasting, aka "AGP abuse", and reviewing the .jobs
breach of its sponsorship, than it provides to .museum, .coop and .cat.
I don't think we should accept the premise that everything is like
.com (or .biz when Jeff represents the VGRS/Afilias/NeuStar members of
the RySG).
I think the more factual position is that ICANN has assumed, as a
matter of convenience, a one-size-fits-all model, during a period in
which it has twice experimented with creating both competition among
similar business models (.com, .net competing with .info and .biz, and
the divested .org) and innovative business models (.aero, .coop,
.museum, .cat, .mobi, .tel, .post), and that there is now sufficient
experience to distinguish the costs to policy the original market,
with its profit seeking registry operators and registrars and
resellers and domainers, and the cost to policy the sponsored and
community serving registries, which are not a "market", but the
separate, though similar, social constructs of cooperatives and
communities and similar social entities.
In the longer-term, the monopoly of the RySG will itself be challenged
by the dis-simularity of interests of .com-clone profit maximizing
registry operators, and registries operated in a public interest.
For our present, noting what Jeff wants us to assume, to the benefit
of his employer, and his advocacy interests, and those his employer
shares with its market-controlling "competitors", and the advocacy
interests of the those market-controlling "competitors", and declining
to overlook the
Eric
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|