Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:11:48 -0400
The way in which I can see someone living with the free-trade and not the CAM
is if they don't believe there should be any regulation or controls, i.e. a
completely - laissez-faire open system.
So when I checked both, I assumed the bottom-up policy driven imposition of
some regulatory framework, but I can imagine that others do not want such a
I think for some people that is, in fact, a big problem with the CAM proposal,
that it contains an ongoing notion of regulation on the behavior of registrars
in situation where there is co-ownership and affiliation with a registry or
RSP. Some do not like the idea of regulation in general and some do not feel
it could be implemented in time to not delay the start of open season on gTLDS
and think that CO limitations are good enough to do the trick. I disagree, but
I can see the points of view. I once tried believing in a world without
regulatory frameworks (really worked at since so many people I respected
thought that way), but was taught by experience that it doesn't work. And I
believe that the basic structure of a regulatory framework, as we described in
CAM is enough to get started, though we would have to work hard over the next
months to make sure the full initial policy was in place before the beginning
And while I have an extremely strong aversion to ICANN making policy, I have
an equally strong support of ICANN enforcing policy and believe it is something
they can do effectively if the policy requires them to do so.
On 11 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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