-----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 1:24 p.m. To: bruce.tonkin@melbourneit.com.au; Bhavin Turakhia; Marilyn Cade; harris@cabase.org.ar; tony.ar.holmes@bt.com; Ken Stubbs; ck@nic.museum; pcolebrook@gnr.com; rader@tucows.com; grant.forsyth@team.telstraclear.co.nz; rader@tucows.com; Philip Sheppard; Thomas Keller; Alick. Wilson; robin@robingross.com; niklas_lagergren@mpaa.org; Maureen@asmconsultants.ca; ktsuru@bgmt.com.mx; lucy.nichols@nokia.com; Bret Fausett Cc: Secretariat@gnso.icann.org; jeffrey@icann.org; pritz@icann.org; twomey@icann.org; Tina Dam; Drazek, Keith; Neuman, Jeff Subject: All, I am sending this note to as many members of the GNSO Council as I have e-mail addresses for. I do not mind if someone reposts this to the Council list. I would do so, but am unable to post to that list. I noticed the following item on the GNSO Council Agenda: Item 8: Consideration of final report on process for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. - for decision NeuLevel was an initial supporter of the process set out in the final report. However, circumstances have changed completely in the past month or so with the signing of the .net Agreement. As you all know, the .net agreement sets out its own process for considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture operation of a gTLD registry. Although there are some similarities, there are also a number of significant differences. Unfortunately, the public comment period on this subject closed prior to the .net Agreement being posted. I believe that any process other than a carbon copy of the process set forth in the current executed .net agreement with VeriSign is unacceptable. A policy as important as the one contained in the final report that applies only to some registries and not the others (i.e., .net) is fundamentally unfair as well as anti-competitive. We believe that adopting any process other than what is in the .net agreement, would single out those other registries "for disparate treatment" in violation of Section 2.1 of the unsponsored TLD Agreements as well as ICANN's bylaws to promote competition. Section 2.1 of the Unsponsored Agreements provide: "2.1. General Obligations of ICANN. With respect to all matters that affect the rights, obligations, or role of Registry Operator, ICANN shall during the Term of this Agreement: 2.1.1. exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner; 2.1.2. not unreasonably restrain competition and, to the extent feasible, promote and encourage robust competition; 2.1.3. not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and not single out Registry Operator for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause; and . . . ." I ask that the Council and the ICANN staff consider the above before making any decisions on this matter. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with any or all of you. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Director, Law & Policy NeuStar, Inc. Loudoun Tech Center 46000 Center Oak Plaza Building X Sterling, VA 20166 p: (571) 434-5772 f: (571) 434-5735 e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us 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.