RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: A Call to Harms

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

Others may disagree, but I believe that potential harms to encumbents
should not be ignored to the extent that such harms are caused by unfair
competitive advantages. In an effort to give new operators a fair shake,
I am concerned that we could go to far and create an unfair competitive
advantge for them. 

Even more important are potential harms to consumers. But the very fact
that you have to keep asking about them drives home our primary concern
- to date, no real studies have been done on this by non-interested
parties. From 2008 when VI/CO first started being discussed/debated the
approach has been ad hoc, haphazard, and incomplete.

There are three bullets on the last slide of the presentation from
Sydney that Jeff N. just copied us all on:

-- Facts matter!
-- Simplistic rules ensure mistakes!
-- Any rules are only effective if rigorously enforced

I think that sums it up for us. Regarding facts, as I said above, we
need real studies. Regarding rules, we want to be sure that a rush to
come to some conclusion does not result in simplistic rules that don't
protect competition and consumers, or rules that ICANN cannot enforce.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: A Call to Harms
From: Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 29, 2010 11:04 am
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>

Sorry, maybe I should have been more clear. 
 
Most of the links below are emails from registries describing how they
are very concerned for independent registrars and that registrars will
be discriminated against. Is it possible to put together a list of how
consumers would be harmed? What are the real affects to consumers in a
world of new gTLDs? 
 
I understand the registries are always looking out for what happens to
registrars and are nervous about that we remain competitive, but I think
this group may be more interested in the issues that consumers and users
face. 
 
 
Thanks 
 
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:57 AM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: A Call to Harms


 
 
It seems like I send this same e-mail out every week to you and to
others asking for the harms.  Again, I know you personally do not agree
with these and that is fine, but don’t confuse that with the statement
that they do not exist.
 
 
For those that do not want to open the attachment, I have reprinted
below (this one was in response to a 4/16/10 post by Palage on audits
being the solution…which is still what he is arguing)……
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Michael,
 
I would hope your support of 2 diametrically opposed proposals did not
solely rely on the ability of ICANN to conduct an audit.  The harms have
been expressed in the numerous papers posted by Register.com, Neustar,
PIR, Afilias, IP Attorneys, and others over the past six months.  A
number of the registrars and new TLD applicants clearly do not agree
with those arguments, but that to me is irrelevant without actual
in-depth study of the issues.  
 
See:
 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/2gtld-guide/msg00033.html
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lubsen-to-dengate-thrush-12oct09-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/maher-to-karklins-25sep09-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-09sep09-en.pdf
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-08may09-en.pdf
http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00001.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00013.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/crai-report/msg00020.html
 
Even the presentation in Sydney -
http://syd.icann.org/files/meetings/sydney2009/presentation-vertical-separation-22jun09-en.pdf
 (much of which I disagree with) documented potential harms.
 
I did not want this group to delve into these issues because frankly
some of us feel like VI/CO does have harmful effects, some do not.  We
are not going to change minds here in this group.  We are trying to find
compromise.  Simply bringing up these old arguments about the harms and
benefits of integration is in my mind not a useful exercise until we can
actually have real studies done by non-interested parties (which is a
long term objective).
 
Best regards,
 
 
Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
 
 
 
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: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:39 AM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] A Call to Harms


 
I have been reading the latest emails on the economists and the need for
analysis of supposed harms and I would like to bring back an earlier
request I made to the list. Could the people that are claiming there
will be great harms if there is cross-ownership and vertical integration
please list these potential harms so they could be analyzed by the
group?
 
I am not asking for an analysis of these harms, but at least a small
list or discussion of what the Registries believe will happen if we
allow CO and VI. When asked by the group to discuss the benefits of CO,
I put forward a presentation on the benefits of cross –ownership
(attached here). I am only asking those who believe there will be some
sort of harms to list those out.  Then maybe we could have a substantive
discussion on benefits vs. harms. 
 
Every action will have harms and benefits. Having a speed limit of 60
mph (100 km) is more dangerous than everyone having to drive at 20 mph
but the benefits of that speed and the chances of harm outweigh the need
for everyone to crawl on the road.  I would like this group to at least
to be able to have these discussions
 
 
Thanks
 
 
Jeff Eckhaus