RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP

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

I think the statement is pretty clear.  Even discussions regarding a policy
development process (from those in the community that could be compeititors
(i.e., registrars, ISPs, other businesses, etc.)) on new registry services
has implications on competition from a legal standpoint. 

It is for this reason that we are requesting a formal legal opinion from
ICANN's general counsel on this issue and are also obtaining our own legal
advice from our own counsels.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:16 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: try-planning@nic.museum
Subject: RE: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP


Jeff, this seems quite strange to me. Are you suggesting that the Council
cannot
address a PDP? Given that it is council's job and responsibility to develop
consensus policy, what are your suggestions to address such policy
development?

202-255-7348c
mcade@xxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:06 AM
To: 'council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Cc: 'try-planning@nic.museum'
Subject: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP
Importance: High



This message was sent by the unsponsored registry members of the gTLD
Registries Constituency this morning.  We cannot support the contemplated
PDP process without these issues being addressed and we are evaluating
whether or not we will participate in this week's scheduled call -- this
being the only issue to be addressed on the call.

Jeff Neuman
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Neuman, Jeff  
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:02 AM
> To:   'twomey@xxxxxxxxx'; 'jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx'; 'smith@xxxxxxxxx'
> Cc:   'vcerf@xxxxxxx'; 'apisan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'dam@xxxxxxxxx';
> 'halloran@xxxxxxxxx'; 'pritz@xxxxxxxxx'
> Subject:      Statement of New Registry Services PDP
> Importance:   High
> 
> Dear Paul, 
> The unsponsored registry members of  gTLD Registries Constituency (.biz,
> .com, .info, .name, .net, .org and .pro) are concerned that a process for
> the introduction of Registry Services involving a policy development
> process within the ICANN community may pose serious competition issues.
> Referral of new Registry Services through a PDP, or even community
> consultation, when some members of the community may be viewed as
> competitors with the gTLD Registries for certain Registry Services could
> potentially inhibit and interfere with the business of the gTLD
> Registries.
> We therefore formally request that any engagement of the policy
> development process involving procedures for the introduction of Registry
> Services, be halted until such time as the ICANN General Counsel provides
> a formal legal opinion the ramifications of such a process from an
> antitrust and unfair competition standpoint. 
> In addition, we intend to engage our own individual counsels on these
> vital issues prior to engaging in this process with the ICANN staff and/or
> community. 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Chair
> gTLD Registries Constituency
>