RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri,

You are correct, in that the 15% cap gives a false sense of protection.  If
there is a will, even zero percent provides no protection.
  
Tom barrett
Encirca


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 3:27 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response



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.

a.