RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff ‘n Jeff:
There are industries and countries in which deregulation and liberalization 
have been slow and gradual, and there are industries and different countries 
which have followed a “big bang” or very fast transition.

Having studied two or three of these cases in great detail, I can tell you that 
the most important thing is to have a clear conception of the goal you are 
trying to reach, and to correctly and fully understand the consequences of 
reaching that goal. The actual pace of liberalization is more a byproduct of 
political and institutional constraints than an attempt to get the policy 
right. But if the goal is right, the faster you can get there, the better. 
Delays and “managed transitions” are usually just ways in which vested 
interests cushion the blow or seek to stall it as long as possible.

In general, I would agree with Jeff E. that we have been adding competition to 
this industry sector since 1999. A structural separation policy appropriate to 
the era of .com and the seven dwarfs is almost certainly not the right policy 
for an era of 200 – 500 new gTLDs. The only sticky transitional issues apply to 
the status of .com, .net and other major legacy TLDs (including ccTLDs) with 
market power.

--MM

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:45 PM
To: 'eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO


Discussion/notice is not transition. Transition is a slow opening up of the 
space to eventual full integration much like the proposal Neustar has submitted.

For example, allowing registries to be registrars in all tlds but their own for 
a period of time to gain experience and to understand the risks, but allow the 
competitive landscape to emerge. Also allowing VI/CO in single registrant tlds 
is another transition.

Then in a subsequent round you expand even further assuming no hiccups and 
regulating any areas that have operated against the public interest.

This was discussed by the icann board and the economists and is a generally 
accepted principal. I know it may not be the answer some may want to hear.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Vice President, Law & Policy
NeuStar, Inc.
Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx

________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed Apr 21 14:21:21 2010
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO
Jeff –my examples were more to show that this issue exists in other areas and  
how the term public interest is used in multiple ways.

My main point here is that the term was used specifically by Alan and others 
and I am just trying to figure out how they are defining public interest. What 
is the measurement?


As for the opening up period you mentioned, is there any way to tell if the 
chosen period was correct. In Telecom you state the time period was 5-10 years. 
Was that the proper period? How do you know it would not have been better if it 
was 5-10 days?
With respect to a notice period, we have been discussing new TLDs and the 
opening of markets for several years. We have moved from  a monopoly to an 
oligopoly over the last 10 years and small opening up of the strict separation 
with TLDs like .PRO that have co-ownership.
Do you consider these last several years as a transition period before an 
“opening up” ?


Jeff Eckhaus


From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:08 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO

Jeff,

Interesting examples you provide, but what does your research show in terms of 
transition timelines.  In other words, once the decision is made to deregulate 
the space, there is usually a several year transition and preparation period 
before allowing complete opening up.  But in this case, the proposal is for 
essentially no transition period.  In the telecom industry, for example, the 
transition period for opening up lasted approximately 5-10 years.  I am not 
advocating that long at all, but it will merit the discussion.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
________________________________
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.


From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:15 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO


Alan - can you please explain what is meant by " a negative impact of the 
public interest" ?





I have heard this term thrown around and now you are asking the proposers to 
prove that it does not have a negative impact, so hopefully you can explain to 
the group what this statement means.



I have done research on the topic and how it relates to opening up of markets 
like the airline industry. When Congress opened up the industry from the 
oligopoly that controlled the airlines Congress stated it was not in the public 
interest to have a politically controlled economy. The airline stated that air 
travel was in the public interest and should not be opened up to competition 
since it was too critical.



Can you shed some light on what you want proven? Maybe it help move this 
process along if people who have specific issues to define them so they can be 
addressed





Thanks





Jeff Eckhaus











-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:45 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Another angle on allowing VI/CO





At 21/04/2010 10:12 AM, Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH wrote:



>We have seen a number of proposals that favor an arbitrary limitation on

>cross-ownership without explaining how for example 15% are effectively

>different from 30% or 50% or even 100% with regard to the interests of

>the consumers.



I think that the issue for some of us is that those proposing  a

specific change from what is working now have the onus of

demonstrating that it will not have a negative impact of the public interest.



>OTOH, consumer interests will most definitely be hurt by

>imposing limitations that will effectively bar certain TLD proposals

>from going live in the first place.



Agreed!





>I think that we might be able to approach the problem from another

>angle, at least for some community TLDs, where only a limited number of

>registrars will be interested in becoming accredited.  For example,  a

>dotBangkok will probably only be of interest to Thai registrars, and

>find its market in that area. Thai Registrars (I have no idea how many

>there are, but it can't be that many) may be interested in investing in

>and setting up a registry for that TLD, simply because they see a market

>for it, but would not be likely to meet a 15% cross-ownership

>requirement. Similarly , in many countries there are no ICANN accredited

>registrars at all, but local TLDs may be proposed. Should the registry

>operator be forced to operate through international registrars only, or

>be allowed to create a registrar himself to be able to reach his target

>market more effectively.



You propose an either/or here. Use international registrars or create

a registrar yourself. But some of the proposals allow for another

alternative - the registry can act as a registrar for its own TLD

(within specific limitations).



Alan