[gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is depressing to see that the net effect of all this discussion is leading 
to imposing a heavy and expensive regulatory and compliance burden on any small 
registry that is forced to act as its own registrar because of lack of market 
interest, or because there are good reasons (e.g., local language) why it wants 
to act as a registrar to serve its community.  

An audit requirement will harm small registries, which will largely be 
cultural-linguistic.  The audit requirement exists simply to prop up a 
"compromise" between existing players for whom a 15% barrier seems reasonable, 
but which has been given (as far as I can see) no credible rationale from the 
perspective of consumer benefit.

So, basically, to placate the interests of existing registries and registrars, 
a kludgy barrier will be erected, and new entrants will have to pay the cost to 
make it work, and those least able to afford it will pay it in disproportionate 
share to their revenues.  For shame. 

Antony





On Apr 15, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Barrett - EnCirca wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
>