Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response
- To: "gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 15:26:35 -0400
On 15 Apr 2010, at 14:25, Michael Palage wrote:
> I think Milton, Jeff E and I are looking for actual harms, so that we can
> address them. Prior to Seoul I supported Afilias/Neustar/PIR's position
> because DemandMedia opposed any audit. Given that they have made an important
> concession on this point, let's talk about how to give the audit teeth
> instead of those that oppose an idea without providing any specific examples
> of harm that cannot be addressed through an audit/complaince program.
As I watch this conversation, I find myself coming to the conclusion that the
need for external audits with teeth comes in as soon as there is any
cross-ownership at all. For if the registries and registrars are not to
trusted with higher degrees of ownership and if they are often so nefarious as
to find a way to take advantage of any situation, then the 15% cap, an
admittedly arbitrary number, is no protection at all.
That is, I think we need a system of audits with teeth no matter what the cap
if that cap is greater then zero.