[gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

 Is this WG officially formed and operational yet? My impression is that it's 
not yet formed until the Monday Mar 22 deadline has passed.

If that is true, let's withhold discussion of substantive policy issues until 
the date for volunteering has passed and everyone who has a right to be here is 
actually here.


Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org<http://internetgovernance.org/>



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jannik Skou
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Naive suggestion for organizing WG


All,

this being my debut in such a WG, please forgive me if you find my proposal for 
handling the "magnitude of the WG issue" being naïve or manipulating:

Idea: should we take an unbinding "poll" or "vote" in the first call (or by 
email) on the different positions (see draft below, please add/correct if 
positions are missing or misunderstood). My gut feeling - based on emails in 
this mailing list and various published statements - is that the vast 
majorities of stakeholders are somewhere in C1-C5 (combinations hereof, plus 
new ideas most likely...):

If that is the case, maybe we could then create smaller WGs to dig into 
pitfalls/benefits of each (and more than listed below) and then take a debate/ 
vote on these issues in the larger WG forum?
VI Positions and Issues

A: "AGAINST VI" (Zero Co-ownership):
Vertical Integration  > Excessive Market Power ( "gaining insight knowledge on 
consumer behavior", discriminate other registrars etc... >  Harm Competition > 
Harm Consumers (Monopoly, high prices, lack of incentives for innovative 
services etc.).

B: "PRO VI" (no restrictions):
Vertical Integration: "No harm in the past" (several examples), possible for 
"small" or "narrow TLD Registry" to promote own TLDs (less dependency on large 
registrars)> benefit consumers better pricing and services for consumers (i.e. 
no "double marginalization")

C: "VI OK, but" ("moderated, limited, exceptions")

C1: VI OK, if Market Power < 40%-60%
Report SALOP/WRIGHT - if market power reaches 40 % (3 different options - 
"prohibit", "45 days delay", or "notification" (governmental anti trust 
authorities)).

(Issue: defining market power - based on all gTLDs (or only new ones including 
the latest such as .mobi ? .tel? .asia? .me? And future TLDs? Or later in own 
TLD on only?)

C2: Limited Co-ownership OK
Definition: Max ownership 20-25 %? (Salop/Wright) - or the 15% ...?

C3: VI OK for "Single Organization"
(i.e. dotBrand standard and restricted / community based and restricted- narrow 
and small TLDs)
CRA Report: "Single Organization TLD" OK if registry (registrar) and registrant 
are the same entity. Questions how to define such TLDs. Would employees, 
business partners still be part of "one organization?" - how about fans or 
consumers...?

C4: VI OK until TLD has reached significant volume of registrations
OK with one preferred (VI) registrar until 50,000 domain registrations (or 
100,000 domain registrations)

C5: AND co-ownership ok, but no cross-activities in "own TLD"
--

TIME PRESSURE:
If no compromise (Policy Recommendation by GNSO) is made - the default board 
resolution from Nairobi ("no co ownership"?) will be enforced in DAG4/Final 
version...(?)

WHO IS WHERE?
Anybody in A? or B? Could we make sub groups on C1-C5? Or unbinding "polls" on 
C1-C5?
 ¨
Does this make sense?

Best regards
Jannik Skou, Partner, Thomsen Trampedach GmbH