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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.

Alan,
You can't prove a negative. This is a staple of logic. So, don't ask for the 
impossible. 

If you are talking about new gTLDs, it's irrefutable that they have zero market 
power at the time of their creation, and indeed, most of us believe they must 
surmount an enormous uphill struggle just to establish themselves, and that 
many will fail.

If businesses contemplating entry into the risky, new gTLD registry market are 
asking for expanded VI and CO opportunities, then it means that they see a 
clear advantage in it for getting the business off the ground. Because they are 
the people who must risk capital and their livelihoods on the proposition, I'm 
inclined to accept, prima facie, the proposition that CO and certain forms of 
VI help them get started.** 

I also think it is very well established that the main problem for consumers is 
lock-in after they've registered a domain. Thus, if you couple CO with 
equivalent access for other registrars, I fail to see any public interest 
problem. Happy to listen to your dissection or disagreement with that argument, 
but so far I haven't heard anything convincing. Please fill me in if ALAC has 
developed a more sophisticated analysis of this. 

I like your analysis of the situation of a (.bangkok) cultural/community TLD, 
you seem to understand that it may have a limited market and the small number 
of players may need to exceed the 15% requirement. Apply that same logic to any 
new gTLD, is what I am saying. 

So the burden of proof is now clearly on you to explain how, given equivalent 
access, altered ownership or structural arrangements for new gTLDs will harm 
the public interest for any new gTLD. 

**One or two registrars seem happy with the status quo limitations on CO but - 
surprise! - they seem to be ones with established gTLDs (CORE, etc.)