[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 09:53:02 -0400
Another point (I am obviously in the process of filling out the poll)
The "free trade" proposal is not really a proposal but a philosophy or
approach. It says that we should have a more open market and that cross
ownership limits are not the proper tool for counteracting stated or perceived
harms. I agree. In this respect, it is identical to the CAM proposal. However,
it does not propose any specific method for preventing harms. The CAM proposal
does, proposing that any anticipated harms could be checked by auditing
requirements and by antitrust checks.
Thus, it is truly incomprehensible to me how anyone could vote that they
support or could "live with" with "free trade" proposal and "oppose" the CAM
proposal. It just doesn't make any sense.
I also wish to state that having this poll was a very good idea. Viewing the
selections is really an eye-opener and I think greatly advances the dialogue.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "livability"
> When we talk about whether one can "live with" the DAGv4 proposal, I
> have one major uncertainty. My understanding is that DAGv4 ownership
> limits and separations would ONLY apply to new applicants, and NOT to
> incumbents and their existing TLDs. Thus, DAGv4 would prevent
> registrars from having any significant ownership interest in registries
> of new gTLDs, but it would not require Afilias/Neustar/VeriSign et al
> to divest their existing ownership interests in registrars. Is that
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft