Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Demand Media support of Neustar position

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,


On 4 Jun 2010, at 20:44, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:

> As for the others who are claiming harms it is as Jeff Neuman stated "we have 
> not seen any evidence of potential harms cross TLDs nor have we heard a 
> justification for it" .  


Perhaps you have heard no justification for it, but I have written about 
justification of such possibilities somewhat on this list.  To repeat my basic 
argument:

I believe the possibility of collusion and thus harm causing activities is 
possible even if RSP/Registry-Registrar/Reseller pairs are selling each other's 
TLDs and not their own.  The reasons for competition authority guidelines on 
cooperation and cartel like behavior is that it is very possible for companies 
who engage in supposedly competitive activities to come to private 'wink/wink' 
agreements to scratch each other's backs - you give this special deal for my 
TLD and I will do that special deal for your TLD.    Without audits and other 
investigative and enforcement abilities, we would never really be able to see 
it was happening unless there was a whistle-blower.

Note: I am not accusing any of the incumbents of such collusive behavior - just 
saying it is possible and we might never know it had happened.  It is good that 
ICANN legal should constantly warn the incumbents to be sure that nothing they 
do even has the optics of such cooperation.  In fact I wish they would warn us 
against such behavior more than they do - when i was last on the Board of a 
small 'standard setting' industry consortium, we were warned before each 
meeting, public or private, to make sure we did not talk about anything that 
could be interpreted as business cooperation - but that is a separate topic for 
another time ad place.

I believe that without audits and strict enforcement of conditions between RSP, 
Registry owner, Registrars or Resellers, we cannot allow any cross-ownership 
beyond de-minimus - and that is the same whether they sell their own TLDs or 
only the TLDs of others.  Remembers as Jeff Neuman has often argued, it is not 
only cross-ownership that is a risk, but other forms of arrangement or 
agreement that constitute control/influence.

I strongly believe that if safety from possible harm is our primary concern 
then we must stick with the DAGv4 implementation unless we are willing to bring 
in appropriate regulations and oversight.  I think that neither the Affialis 
and company proposal nor the JN2 proposal offers and regulatory structure or 
oversight.  

I do still think that if we want to balance the possibility for innovation with 
protections from harm, then a proposal with regulatory teeth and oversight is 
needed.  CAM is one such proposal.

a.