Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Depressing consequences

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I too often find myself fearing the burdens of regulations, but have come to 
accept that a certain amount of freedom to innovate also entails a certain 
amount of protection against the excess of some kinds of innovation.

In the case of the rules and auditing requirements for gTLDs that have 
cross-ownership above some accepted CAP, these do not have to be overbearing.  
Just as small businesses undergo accounting audits from time to time without 
dying under the burden, I think audit procedures can be designed that are both 
sufficient and lightweight.  What is important is that when discrepancies are 
fond there is a way to escalate the audit and a way to redress the problem.

So I must say, I do not feel shame, as suggested by the note below, at being in 
favor of allowing more freedom to innovate in return for audits that we 
admittedly probably need anyway - even if we were not to allow more freedom for 
innovation.  And for the small gTLD that can find no registrar willing to sell 
its names, the burden probably be extremely light as there would be precious 
little to audit.

a.


On 15 Apr 2010, at 16:30, Antony Van Couvering wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
> 
>