Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Milton Mueller,

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> 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.


As you have noticed and quoted in one of your later messages in this thread,
I have indicated some broad measures. A lot of work needs to be done in
identifying  harms, categorizing harms and ranking them in terms of the
intensity of harm to the Registrants / Internet. Then the penalties can be
discussed and after that it would have to be explored if some or most of the
harm can be contained by the Domain Industry by an internal code of good
practices. I don't feel that it would be practical for ICANN to announce a
table of harms and penalties and 'discipline' the domain industry like a
school master. Sooner or later the Domain Industry has to work within and
evolve practices that are fair to one another for a start, and then develop
and agree on good practices that are fair to the Internet and fair to ICANN
and fair to the Registrants. There would be some areas left out, some
practices on which the Domain Industry would be reluctant to restrain
itself. The community can look at those areas, focus on those areas and
negotiate with the Industry, prescribe measures to control those harms that
the Industry clings to. It is a lot of work, definitely not work for one
person, not in such a hurry.

Thank you for your positive remarks about the FT proposal.


> 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.
>
> --MM
>
> > -----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
> > correct?
> >
> > Milton L. Mueller
> > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
> >
> >
>
>
>