Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] poll - Too early to ask these questions

[Steve Pinkos <stevepinkos@xxxxxxxxx>]

I appreciate Mikey’s call for a poll and other comments asking for wider
participation and thought it is probably time for me to speak up.

Like Statton, I have paid close attention to the comments and proposals and
I also have had some "side" discussions in an attempt to better understand
all aspects of the issue.  In particular, I've focused on the concerns
regarding "abuse" "insider trading" and "consumer harm" that some have
raised in conjunction with vertical integration.

By way of background, I am not a long-time ICANN participant---I can't tell
stories from an ICANN meeting in a far-flung location in 2003 or why clause
7.1 was not approved by the GNSO in 2005.  However, most of my professional
life has been spent in a public policy setting---as a staffer within the
U.S. House of Representatives and as an appointee in the U.S. Executive
Branch.  So for what it's worth, I have participated in numerous policy
discussions like the one in which we are all engaged.

At this point, I think many folks in the community seem to be anchored in a
monopolistic/.com-centric viewpoint that perhaps was necessary over 10 years
ago and resulted in "regulations" aimed at leveling the playing field for
registrars and to some extent among the limited number of registries/TLDs.
 I understand that some talented members of this working group and the
community at large believe that each new TLD will form its own little
monopoly.  I agree that the big established TLDs may still have some
monopolistic features because of the huge head start they had, but I just
don't see that being the case with new gTLDs.  I'm looking at the rest of
the world and I see that nearly every brand line is different and to varying
degrees has consumers locked in to their product, but consumers continue to
have options.  HP is different than Dell like .horses is different than
.animal or even .stallions.

I respect and appreciate the viewpoints of the working group members and
their earnestness to seek a "compromise solution," but I've yet to hear a
compelling rationale for the restrictive and heavy-handed regulatory
approach of denying a "producer" the flexibility to pursue their own means
of distribution. The concerns about abuse, and the harms they could
allegedly cause, seem more theoretical than likely to occur.  And, there is
much evidence that less restrictive and open markets tend to benefit
consumers. ICANN itself is acknowledging this basic premise by opening up
the gTLD space to significant competition and essentially saying that new
TLDs should sink or swim based on market demand.

Nearly every other industry operates just fine by allowing producers to
determine their own means of distribution.   Let's allow the marketplace to
work, as I believe there is enough incentive for new registries to want to
succeed that they will not trample consumers in the process.  If they don't
build a loyal customer base, they will fail and lose hundreds of thousands
in start-up dollars.

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Hammock, Statton <
shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Mikey,
>
>
>
> I will finally chime in here and support Jeff’s comment that it is a little
> early to ask for our views on each of the proposals. I do like the idea of
> the poll but I, personally, need a little more time to analyze the details.
>  Some of the proposals were just introduced this week, after all.
>
>
>
> I have been mostly a “lurker” with respect to the e-mail exchanges on the
> list but I have not been doing so with my hands “folded.”  I regularly take
> notes on the points being raised by active members of the group and try to
> map out where consensus might be found given the various viewpoints.  Some
> of the discussions have struck me as being too theoretical but also
> practical suggestions and proposals have been introduced and I am trying to
> focus on them and really try to get a feel on how this should play out.
>  Waiting another week for the poll would be helpful to me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Statton
>
>
>
> * Statton Hammock
> * Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
>
>   *P* 703-668-5515  *M *703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com>
> www.networksolutions.com
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Neuman, Jeff
> *Sent:* Friday, April 16, 2010 10:01 AM
> *To:* gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] poll - Too early to ask these questions
>
>
>
> Mikey,
>
>
>
> Although I appreciate the notion of taking polls, I just have the feeling
> that it is WAY too early to ask the questions that you have on Poll #1.
> Very few of us understand the implications of each of the proposals enough
> to be able to comment on whether we support or oppose a particular proposal
> much less whether we can fill in the comment sections on any revisions that
> we would propose to that particular proposal.  I thought we were going to
> form sub-teams to look at the proposals to discuss the pros and cons of each
> of the proposals in order to potentially come up with some sort of hybrid or
> consensus driven proposal (if possible).
>
>
>
> In addition, there is nothing in the survey that asks the responder to
> declare its interests (namely, (a) to check all that apply….gTLD Registry,
> gTLD Registrar, New TLD Applicant, New TLD back-end Registry Services
> Provider, etc., and (b) are you in favor of integration or separation….).  I
> just think that coming out of this survey saying x number of people support
> this proposal without the essential context is going to be misleading
> especially with this group being so stacked with New TLD applicants,
> registries, registry services providers and registrars).
>
>
>
> I would strongly ask that we withdraw this survey for this week in favor of
> proceeding as initially proposed.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
> *Office:** *+1.571.434.5772  *Mobile**: *+1.202.549.5079  *Fax: *
> +1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx  */* www.neustar.biz
>    ------------------------------
>
> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the
> use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have
> received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,
> distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and
> delete the original message.
>
>
>