Dear Jeff,
I find this of interest, and do appreciate
your posting it to us. I’ve copied Council.
Others may have as well.
Your point has been the topic of
discussions I’ve raised with a variety of players. I am presently
intending to vote in support of the new registry procedures. Let me explain
why.
I am not satisfied that the contract
negotiations should “trump” consensus policy. I am under the
impression that was a tactic agreement with the community/and I apparently
thought, that the bylaws supported that. I’m disappointed, to frustrated,
to learn otherwise.
However, I have asked our chair/staff to
arrange for the General Counsel to advise us on to whom the consensus policy
will apply: further new sponsored gTLDS; reauthorizations/.com?
I don’t know if that will be
tomorrow, but I agree time Is limited.
From: Neuman, Jeff
[mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:24
PM
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.
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 inconsidering requests for consent and related contractual amendments toallow 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.