RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff, 
A known flaw of consensus policy making is that any interest group happy with 
the status quo has absolute blocking power over any deviation from the status 
quo. As long as they can deliberately hold up consensus they get exactly what 
they want. 

By asking for detailed answers from the Board about the meaning of "no 
co-ownership" are you not asking the board to make a policy for us, and then 
you'll decide whether to play with the rest of us depending on whether you like 
what they produce? 

Suppose you decide that you like their construction of what "no co-ownership" 
means: there goes your incentive to negotiate with the rest of us! 

If so, I would urge the Board _not_ to answer those questions. And based on 
what we heard on today's call, it seems that at least two board members agree 
with me. 

As an alternative approach, I suggest that you grok the spirit of the board 
resolution which is: solve this problem among yourselves or something none of 
you like will happen. The board should retain the discretion to make that 
"something none of us will like" as odoriferous as possible. Thus it should not 
answer your questions. I suspect they are smart enough to know that. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:49 PM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 
> Stephane,
> 
> Just one clarification.  You state:  "As the total separation solution
> is probably the least palatable to most people ", I am not sure that all
> of us agree that total separation is not palatable.  One of the problems
> is that the Board's resolution was so fraught with ambiguity, that we
> really don't understand what the Board really meant by total separation.
> It is the same issue we have with the existing contracts.  Each person
> has their own interpretations about what the existing contracts state on
> this subject.  As the issue has never been litigated, we do not who is
> right, or if anyone is right.  Hence, the reasons for the questions we
> drafted.  I know that until I understand exactly what they Board meant
> in its resolution, I cannot say that their resolution is not palatable
> and I believe there are others who feel the same way.  I don't mean to
> beat this issue to death, but there are a lot of assumptions being made.
> 
> Let me give you an example.  I am oversimplifying this example to make a
> point, so please do not publish this on your blogs....
> 
> Neustar has a contract with an association of telecom carriers to
> administer local number portability in North America.  The Federal
> Communications Commission (a US govt agency) requires that Neustar, in
> this role, must abide by a code of neutrality, meaning that we cannot be
> "owned" by a telecommunications service provider nor can Neustar own a
> Telecommunications Service Provider.  This has been interpreted through
> regulation and contract to mean that Neustar may not own more than five
> percent (5%) of a Telecommunications Service Provider, nor can a
> Telecommunications Service Provider own more than five percent (5%) of
> Neustar.  Moreover, no member of the Neustar Board may own more than
> five percent (5%) of a Telecommunications Service Provider.  Ownership
> is defined both by legal ownership as well as by control (by contract or
> otherwise).  Thus, the FCC for this purpose, has accepted the fact that
> a 5% or less ownership stake in either direction is de minimus enough to
> not!
>   constitute any true ownership or control.  These rules were put into
> place because the Telecommunications Service Providers did not want the
> entity implementing number portability to also be a service provider
> because the local number portability provider was receiving sensitive
> data from each of the telecommunication service providers and did not
> want the local number portability provider to be in a position to use
> that data to compete.  Even with neutrality audits, equal access, non-
> discriminatory access, structural separation, etc., that was not deemed
> enough for the telecom industry to allow Neustar to be able to compete
> with the Telecommunication Service Providers in the provision of telecom
> services.  We even have to enforce these restrictions as a public
> company.
> 
> Now before people argue that the domain name system market is completely
> different for X,Y and Z reasons (and they would be right), I just point
> out this example to state that strict separation, depending on how it is
> implemented, may be palatable for some.  Or it may not be.  That is what
> this group, the ICANN community and the Board must decide.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> 
> 
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
> have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 6:11 PM
> To: Roberto Gaetano
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> 
> 
> My read of the Board resolution is that if this group does not produce
> deliverables in time to include them in DAGv4 and final AG, then the
> Board will go with its current total separation stance.
> 
> That to me is a clever way to 1) get all those people with strong and
> diverse opinions on VI whom so far have found it impossible to agree on
> anything to try and reach consensus and 2) make sure that if they don't,
> a solution is there meaning that this overarching issue will no longer
> delay the new gTLD program.
> 
> As the total separation solution is probably the least palatable to most
> people, option 1 may stand a good chance.
> 
> One solution might be phasing, as long as it is as Avri suggests: i.e.
> we work on a "quick solution" for round 1 and are able to leave certain
> issues that we would find more complex to agree on aside for later
> policy development.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Le 23 mars 2010 à 22:13, Roberto Gaetano a écrit :
> 
> >
> > I am glad you are explaining in detail the phasing concept.
> > Seen this way, as a tool to get something done quickly ("getting the
> low
> > hanging fruits", for instance, but not limited to that), while not
> being
> > delayed by discussions on matters of principle, or just on more
> complicated
> > issues, it can be a good way to achieve results.
> > Of course, the question is then on what will be part of "release 1"
> and what
> > will be postponed, and whether "release 1" is still meaningful, i.e.
> whether
> > it has "enough fruits".
> > I assume that the role of the co-chairs might be relevant in shaping
> what is
> > in the scope of the first release, but I also hope that we will have
> > substantial support from the team.
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 19:08
> >> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Idea of Phasing
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As one of those who spoke in favor of phasing, let me explain myself.
> >>
> >> In any phasing, dealing with recommendations for the current
> >> round should be phase I and should be completed as quickly as
> >> possible without any deviations for side issues.
> >>
> >> If, on the other hand there are more complicated issues that
> >> we want to consider with relation to incumbent practice or
> >> what would pertain in future rounds that is the stuff I would
> >> recommend for a second phase.  Additionally, if for example
> >> we decide on a set of practices that are ok for this current
> >> round, but then decide that we want to consider what happens
> >> when conditions change and the registry wants to change its
> >> model , that is an issue I would defer to a second phase.  On
> >> the other hand if we set a bunch conditions related to
> >> co/cross ownership for new first round registries and want to
> >> consider allowing an incumbent to adopt that model, that too
> >> is something I would recommend pushing off to a later phase.
> >> BTW, I would not be surprised in some of these hypothetical
> >> issues required going back to the GNSO for a charter renewal
> >> at some point (not recommending that for now).
> >>
> >> In short I recommend phasing and the creation of a phase II
> >> so that we have a place to put any issue that comes up that
> >> does not immediately affect the current new gTLD process.
> >> For all of the stuff related to this round - I hope we have
> >> our recommendations in time for Brussels, if not before.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >
> 
>