RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I agree that the 15% limit is arbitrary and did not originally support putting 
it into this joint proposal at all. However given the existence of contracts 
that already have this limit in there, it made some sense ("level playing 
field") to make it the starting point. I was operating under the assumption 
that basically anyone who applies for any higher cross-ownership share - 
including 100% - would be granted that unless they have more than 40% market 
share and/or the competition authorities see a problem. So I didn't see 15% as 
a deal breaker.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 10:15 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Joint Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
>