[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton,

If any of the incumbents applied to be a new registry or back-end operator, 
wouldn't that in essence require such a divestiture.  Sure, if they do not 
apply to be a registry or back-end, you may be right, but I don't think that is 
really going to be an issue.  In either case, at least with respect to Neustar, 
we do not own any percentage at the current time of any icann-accredited 
registrar or reseller.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


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-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "livability"


When we talk about whether one can "live with" the DAGv4 proposal, I have one 
major uncertainty. My understanding is that DAGv4 ownership limits and 
separations would ONLY apply to new applicants, and NOT to incumbents and their 
existing TLDs. Thus, DAGv4 would prevent registrars from having any significant 
ownership interest in registries of new gTLDs, but it would not require 
Afilias/Neustar/VeriSign et al to divest their existing ownership interests in 
registrars. Is that correct? 

Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft