[gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Since we are getting close to the point where we must decide what we 
will say in Brussels, I thought I would state my position. To be 
clear, this is a personal position and not a formal ALAC position. 
Although I have discussed aspects with some ALAC members who support 
my views, there are clearly others who do not.
First, with regard to timing, although we clearly have to give a 
report and it is important for the community and the Board to 
understand where we are heading, I do not see Brussels as a drop-dead 
decision point. The Board gave us the task of providing an 
alternative to their "zero cross-ownership" default in sufficient 
time to allow it to be used in the first round of new gTLDs without 
delaying that launch. Since we are optimistically looking for a 
launch near the end of this calendar year, that means that our 
recommendation needs to be locked in by *about* August to allow for 
public comment and GNSO/Board approval.
I am approaching this from the point of view of registrants and the 
overall community. I specifically am not looking at it from the 
perspective of business opportunities. I favour security and 
stability of the gTLD ecosystem over innovation at this point. 
Moreover, I am looking at this as a solution for the first round of 
new gTLDs. The PDP WG can continue to work on a long-term solution 
which might be quite different. For that reason, I think that it is 
important to not implement something that may need to be either 
turned back when the final recommendation is made, or worse, have 
those who participated in the first round be working under different 
rules than those who come in later.
Of the proposals on the table, I support the latest one submitted by 
Brian Cute on behalf of Afilias and others, although I would like to 
see some modifications to it prior to final acceptance.
I support this proposal because it makes minimal changes to an 
already complex environment, but it plugs some loop-holes that are 
already there. I would like to see some exceptions built in to 
accommodate SR TLDs and small cultural or not-for profit TLDs, but I 
agree that defining these may be a challenge. Hopefully we can do it 
before my suggested August date.
At this time, I reject the proposal to relax the cross-ownership 
rules as long as the related parties do not market their own TLDs. I 
am sympathetic to it in theory, if it could be credibly enforced. But 
I believe that it will make an already complex environment even more 
complex, with absolutely no chance of ICANN being able to monitor or 
take action on infractions. As others have noted, ICANN compliance 
may be getting more effective, but they still have a long way to go 
when you factor in how much the TLD space they are responsible for 
will grow. The issue of resellers has been mentioned, and I think 
that it is important, particularly since ICANN compliance does not 
consider them within their scope at the moment.
I cannot consider supporting the CAM model without a well-defined 
definition of the "market" that I agree with. I strongly believe that 
there is not just one homogeneous TLD or even gTLD market, a core 
assumption of many of the economists who would be the arbitrators in 
this proposal. The really successful new gTLDs (and I do think that 
there will be some), will be markets unto themselves. But that level 
of success will be impossible to determine ahead of time when the CAM 
model says the evaluations will first be made. Once a decision is 
made for integration, later success cannot undo it, except by forced 
divestiture and that is not something we should build into our 
system. Moreover, I still question whether the appropriate 
competition authorities would participate in a timely fashion as the 
proposal anticipates.
Lastly, I reject the arguments raised by some that many ccTLDs are 
vertically integrated and it works for them. While not denying the 
truth of this statement, I note that these TLDs operate in a totally 
different environment. Many or most are not-for profit, often with 
active or passive government involvement. They often set rules far 
more stringent than ICANN does (or perhaps can) and then they often 
diligently enforce those rules. But as noted, I believe that there 
are certain classes of gTLDs for which this could be both desirable and viable.
Alan