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

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane,

 

I do not think Milton nor I were trying to silence anyone,  I think it was
more of a call for a little civil discourse after some quickly fired emails
between some participants with some strongly and well known positions. 

 

Best regards,

 

Michael

 

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

 

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 <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