Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 11 Apr 2010, at 20:10, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> I do not want to jump the gun on the list but would like to ask a question 
> that I hope you can address in your presentation tomorrow. The 15% limit is a 
> legacy number that I believe is contractually based and is rooted in the 
> VeriSign / NSI sale and how they structured the deal. 
> 
> Could you discuss tomorrow the value of maintaining that 15% limit going 
> forward ? Why is that the appropriate percentage of ownership?  How is 15% 
> better than 5% or 51% or 100% ? 


As Michael already sent a answer I will add my own tidibt - why I agreed to 15%.

My initial inclination was to put the bar at 0% since that is the new mark set 
by the Board. This would have course required that those with existing 
co-ownership relationships would have had to either be reviewed by the 
competition authority or divest.  

Another proposal, not mine, was that the bar be set so that anyone who wanted 
to have a majority share would need to be reviewed.  

As the 15% mark was the one most were already living with, it became the 
consensus point for the 3 of us.  I accepted it because it would cause the 
existing player the least stress. 

On the use of national competition authorities, it is probably not a secret 
that I am the least friendly to using government based mechanisms to control 
ICANN actions.  While I think it is better than asking ICANN staff to make such 
determinations, I think it may be also be a US centric solution.  Another 
possibility might have been that an international board of competition experts 
might be better suited to the issue. bBut then again does ICANN want to get 
into this business?  However, since governments are the final arbiters of such 
things, there may be value in going to them directly.  Hence my agreement with 
this as an initial position for the proposal.


a.