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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

For any one on the VI-WG who might be wondering I want to clearly declare
that (in my personal capacity and WG Member) I am one of the ALAC Members
who  agrees with the points Alan makes in his message below, my often quoted
"hasten slowly - but continue moving forward" approach comes into play
here...  So at this stage my "greatest comfort" with the proposals we
are looking at, (as they are NOT converged  i.e. not blended or merged
/ mutuality explored etc.,)  at this point *and* in the absence of
other clarifications , further modification and/or discussion is with the
proposal signed by *Brian Cute - Afilias Ken Stubbs – Afilias, Kathy
Kleinman – PIR, Ron Andruff – RNA Partners, Tim Ruiz - GoDaddy.*

I have copied this message to the ALAC Working list (and that
also include all Regional Leaders and Liaisons etc.,)  as the matters being
reviewed and discussed in the VI-WG (as well as DAG 4)  is on our formal
ALAC Agenda for Brussels and there *we will be seeking to form an ALAC
-At-Large view*  I feel it is important that these views (especially as I
will not be able to attend the Sat a.m. VI-WG session in Brussels (as I have
ATRT Meting commitments as do others in this WG)  that these views are *on
the record*


Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 4 June 2010 04:25, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>