[council] Posted to Council list on behalf of Jeff Neuman

[Alick Wilson <alick.wilson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, 27 July 2005 1:24 p.m.
To: bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bhavin Turakhia; Marilyn Cade;
harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; tony.ar.holmes@xxxxxx; Ken Stubbs; ck@nic.museum;
pcolebrook@xxxxxxx; rader@xxxxxxxxxx; grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rader@xxxxxxxxxx; Philip Sheppard; Thomas Keller; Alick. Wilson;
robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; niklas_lagergren@xxxxxxxx; Maureen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
ktsuru@xxxxxxxxxxx; lucy.nichols@xxxxxxxxx; Bret Fausett
Cc: Secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; pritz@xxxxxxxxx;
twomey@xxxxxxxxx; 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@xxxxxxxxxx 

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.