<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust
- To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Vested interests - status quo - market incumbents - anti trust
- From: Michael Castello <michaelc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:47:17 -0700
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head><title>Re[2]: [bc-gnso] Vested interests - status quo - market
incumbents - anti trust</title>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
<style type="text/css"><!--
body {
margin: 5px 5px 5px 5px;
background-color: #ffffff;
}
/* ========== Text Styles ========== */
hr { color: #000000}
body, table /* Normal text */
{
font-size: 9pt;
font-family: 'Courier New';
font-style: normal;
font-weight: normal;
color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;
}
span.rvts1 /* Heading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #0000ff;
}
span.rvts2 /* Subheading */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-weight: bold;
color: #000080;
}
span.rvts3 /* Keywords */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
font-style: italic;
color: #800000;
}
a.rvts4, span.rvts4 /* Jump 1 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts5, span.rvts5 /* Jump 2 */
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family: 'Arial';
color: #008000;
text-decoration: underline;
}
a.rvts6, span.rvts6
{
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
span.rvts7
{
font-size: 8pt;
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
span.rvts8
{
font-family: 'arial';
}
span.rvts9
{
font-size: 8pt;
font-family: 'calibri';
color: #1f497d;
}
span.rvts10
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
}
a.rvts11, span.rvts11
{
font-family: 'segoe ui';
color: #0000ff;
text-decoration: underline;
}
/* ========== Para Styles ========== */
p,ul,ol /* Paragraph Style */
{
text-align: left;
text-indent: 0px;
padding: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.rvps1 /* Centered */
{
text-align: center;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<p>Mike,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>I believe the bottom up consensus makes sense if it obtains initial resolve
amongst the general members, then progresses as a mandate to committee for
conclusion. If applied in this manner there would be less resistance with the
final statement. </p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Michael Castello</p>
<p>CEO/President</p>
<p>Castello Cities Internet Network, Inc.</p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="http://www.ccin.com";>http://www.ccin.com</a></p>
<p><a class=rvts6 href="mailto:michael@xxxxxxxx";>michael@xxxxxxxx</a></p>
<p><br></p>
<p>--</p>
<p>Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 5:14:27 AM, you wrote:</p>
<p><br></p>
<div><table border=0 cellpadding=1 cellspacing=2 style="background-color:
#ffffff;">
<tr valign=top>
<td width=2 style="background-color: #0000ff;"><br>
</td>
<td width=1683>
<p><span class=rvts7>i'd like to add something to the scope of this discussion
-- the question of whether the consensus decision-making model is really the
best one to use in all cases. the early ICANN documents talk about a
"bottom-up process" for quite a while. then, at some point which is hard
to pin down, that language changed to "bottom-up consensus-based process."
i've had a hard time figuring out why that choice was made. there
are all kinds of decision-making processes with different strengths and
weaknesses. the primary weaknesses of consensus are a) it's not well
suited to making decisions quickly or on a schedule and b) it can lead to a
no-decision outcome (which can be gamed). </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>what would be neat, in my view, would be an addition to
the chartering process which decided what policy-development model AND
decision-making approach would be used when launching a PDP, with some
guidelines to help people decide...</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>mikey</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts7>On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:46 AM, Philip Sheppard
wrote:</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>In the context of the VI debater Mike R has made a telling
comment:</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts9>"I do not think it possible to get the support of parties
who have a vested economic interest in the status quo"</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>This to my mind is one of the key flaws of the WG model of
policy development. Incumbents are able to manipulate future markets.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>This has anti-trust implications.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>A User House project could usefully take this up for
broader discussion.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>First steps would by CSG agreement to do so.</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Sarah - would you be willing to take this
forward?</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts7> </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts8>Philip</span></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>- - - - - - - - -</span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>phone 651-647-6109 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>fax 866-280-2356 </span></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>web </span><a class=rvts11
href="http://www.haven2.com";>http://www.haven2.com</a></p>
<p><span class=rvts10>handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like
Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|