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 11:28:58 -0400
Ok, so they don't believe in Laissez-faire. I sit corrected.
Maybe they just don't like the way CAM proposes doing the audits and ICANN led
enforcement and 3 strikes rules.
Or maybe they don't like the notion of a prior initial review by an external
panel of international competition experts, i.e. the proposed CESP for
increasing beyond the defined threshold of 15% (again all threshold number in
CAM are negotiable)
Obviously there is something they like in Free Trade that they don't see in
CAM, or something they don't like in CAM that they don't see in Free Trade. I
would be curious to know what it is, since CAM is trying to define a compromise
position, though adhering to a few principles, and am eternally optimistic that
it might be possible to discuss something - especially with so many people
favoring Free Trade and it becoming one of the leading proposals.
On 11 Jun 2010, at 11:12, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 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.
>> From the FT proposal:
> "The focus needs to be on the list of harms and how a Registrar or Registry
> may be
> restrained in the event that it is detected that a certain Registry or
> Registrar is engaged
> in harmful practices. The measures can vary from relaxing Registrar
> accreditation fees
> and rules to increase the number of Registrars to foster better competition,
> directives to a Registry to treat all Registrars on par, to withdrawal of
> accreditation of a
> Registrar to even directing a Registry to stop registering any more names."