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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Right, I am not saying "shut up" I am saying don't make substantive, 
controlling decisions that might not reflect the views or input of some people 
still joining. For example, calling for a straw poll that kicks into motion 
before 5, 10, or 20 people join and even know what it's about is not on. Why 
don't we use this interim period to come to some informal agreements about 
_how_ we can structure the discussion going forward?

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 Michael D. Palage
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:19 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Let's slow down the discourse here

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> 
[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<mailto: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> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jannik Skou
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 5:26 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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