RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - An RSP Question..

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Off list

You are of course exactly right, Jeff. But as I said in my earlier message, the 
people you are arguing with have moved beyond reasoning and are now in a 
positioning phase. They have a defined political objective: preserve the status 
quo and their position in it. Their object is to scare us away from making any 
changes that would make new entry easier. They are not interested in logic or 
facts.

From: Jeff Eckhaus [mailto:eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Unfortunately we have seen people who run charities loot the charity and put 
money into their own pocket, stealing from the people who they are supposed to 
serve. Is the way to stop this to not allow new charities to form and only 
allow existing charities to operate?
Gaming and bad actors are not related to cross-ownership and can occur with 0% 
separation and with 100% separation. As you say, we saw it happen with .travel 
which had the separation you feel is "something known"  and many others have 
called a system that works.

I believe the correct remedy is to move forward, promote competition, allow new 
entrants but have a system of reviews and enforcement. This is something that 
we saw in many proposals including JN2.

Let's be clear on one thing, the proposals to allow 0% or 15% ownership only 
does one thing, keeps out one class of entrants, Registrars. It allows all the 
bad actors in the world to apply, does not guarantee we will be free  of gaming 
at all. It is a false sense of security. To those that state that separation 
lowers the chances of gaming occurring, I go back to Ron's original point, 
thieves will be thieves.