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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Alan,

Thanks for the note and I do have one specific point on your note and an issue 
you brought up. On the subject of cross-ownership rules where the related 
parties do not market the TLDs you are sympathetic to it but have concerns 
about ICANN enforcement. I believe the idea of why proposal writers brought 
this scenario in as a compromise, is that it would not add any additional 
enforcement needs above and beyond if it was an applicant who did not have 
cross-ownership.  But would not restrict a class of applicants just because 
they are an ICANN accredited Registrar. 

This is a subject that I really want to be clear on because some believe that 
if it is a Registrar that applies it will require additional scrutiny even if 
they do not distribute the TLD. I do not believe that  is true, as it requires 
the same exact level of scrutiny as any other applicant whether they are 
co-owned or not.  

Now whether or not you believe ICANN compliance is up to the task on new TLDs 
is a another matter for another day 



Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:25 AM
To: VI
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] My thoughts on the proposals


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