Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] Re: Q&A - RyC and JAS WG VERSION 2 - PLEASE REVIEW by Friday May 20

[Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear JAS members,

Just yesterday I endorsed Evan's email encouraging and welcoming
participation, but this endorsement was with the understanding that we each
bring a different perspective to the table based on our own personal
experience and competencies.

It's impossible and irrational to think that these perspectives will always
complement eachother, and when trying to rationalise them into a single view
it is obvious to question the underlying principles creating or giving
weight to them.

Even though this is a salient issue, it is undoubtedly important for us to
resolve it in moving forward as a unit.

My interpretation is that, the assertion of where Jeff's comments are coming
from is a recognition of his prominent position in the industry. Further, it
is difficult for me to comprehend why the comments would be made if he did
not assess them for himself given his own expertise and connive or endorse
them, this is to our WG's benefit for us appreciate this slant. Failure to
speak up on and just blindly forwarding comments without proper thoughtful
evaluation does not put our pool of expertise to effective use and hinders
the WG's progress.

During my short time on the drafting team, I have also become accustomed to
Eric's style of writing. Therefore I don't see his comments as being stated
with any malace and, knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. I also find
it a hard stretch to consider the real injury Jeff has been caused by Eric's
opinion.

I do hope we can be more flexible and build an environment of open sharing
and sound justification of opinions in the future.

Kind regards

Cintra


On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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
>