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

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Milton, Mike,

The group already exists. It had its first F2F meeting in Nairobi (with remote 
part as well). I do not see why the fact that we are now in the process of 
inviting volunteers to join should lead us to limit the discussion that is 
already taking place amongst those who are already members of the WG.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 19 mars 2010 à 18:13, Michael D. Palage a écrit :

> Hello All,
>  
> I think Milton makes a very valid point. I think all sides need to slow down 
> and go to their respective corners and wait until all the team members are in 
> place. 
>  
> This is a very passionate issue for most participants (myself included), in 
> fact no sane person would likely sign up for this Working Group if they did 
> not have some strongly held beliefs one way or the other.
>  
> Perhaps we could get the announcer that does all the prize boxing matches to 
> begin Monday’s Call with his famous phrase -  “Let’s get ready to rumble.” 
> (Just an attempt for some light humor)
>  
> I think the ICANN Board did the right thing in passing a Draconian resolution 
> that created an environment where opposing parties now have a vested interest 
> to find some common ground.  If the free speech and non-commercial types were 
> able to find common ground with the trademark and IP interests, I am 
> optimistic that this diverse group can achieve the same outcome.
>  
> Just my two cents, and I look forward to some interesting, passionate, yet 
> constructive exchanges in the months ahead.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Michael
>  
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
> Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 12:33 PM
> To: 'Jannik Skou'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here
>  
>  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
> 
>  
>  
> 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
>  
>