RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] VI - Make us feel safer

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Any form of abuse that can be conceived under a 100% VI/CO scenario is
> just as possible under a 15% or even 0% policy.

Volker: 
I agree with you, for the most part (see last paragraph for qualifications). 
However, do you understand the full implications of your assertion? If the 
topics of CO and VI are literally _unrelated_ to the most of the forms of abuse 
and gaming we are now discussing, then they are out of scope for this working 
group, and should be dealt with elsewhere. 

I realize that some opponents of innovation in business models might leap on 
that and try to spin it as me saying that I don't care whether those abuses 
happen or not. So let me pre-empt such tactics by providing a specific example. 

Let's consider the example of front-running. Front running can be - and 
actually has been - a problem under the status quo Ry-Rr separation system. It 
was dealt with via additional contractual regulations and some enforcement. It 
is therefore obvious to anyone who thinks about it, that a separated registrar 
can engage in front-running. It is also true that a partially cross-owned 
registrar can do it. It is unclear - and no one has made a convincing argument 
yet - why a wholly-owned Rr would be more likely to do it. So control of 
front-running - while important - has very little to do with ownership and VI 
restrictions, and lots more to do with how icann structures and enforces its 
contracts. Same is true for almost all of the other "gaming" people here have 
been hyperventilating about.

One qualification: there are cases in which ownership levels or VI can be used 
as an effective method of regulating an actor with significant market power. 
E.g., we would not want to allow VeriSign to become vertically integrated in 
.com, and we would want to watch very carefully what GoDaddy does when it 
enters the registry market given its market power in the retail registrar 
market which may (or may not) lead to problems or conflicts of interest in how 
it offers registrar service for competing TLDs. 

But on the whole, you are right. Most of this abuse talk is completely 
irrelevant to the mandate of this WG. What is happening is that certain status 
quo oriented interests are using legitimate concerns about general problems 
related to domain name registration to spread FUD about any changes we might 
make in business models that would open up the market. I'm wise to that - good 
to see that you are, too.