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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri Doria,


On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> 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)
>

a quick look analysis can not quickly happen. It would take months if the
task is tagged very urgent.

In general, any limits on cross ownership can work to perpetuate unfair
trade practices. For instance, a 15% limit on cross ownership would deter a
PIR or a Verisign from setting up a Registry back-end services business.

In the absence of  limits on cross-ownership, a Registry or a Registrar can
make use of its industry expertise and technical exposure by venturing into
Registry Services, which in turn would make these services competitive,
which in turn would bring down a Registry/Registrar's cost of operations
which in turn would bring down the price of domain registrations; Limits on
cross ownership may deter different Registration Authorities from becoming
Registrars who may emerge to become significant enough to balance very large
Registrars.


> 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.
>

I feel that the procedures outlined in the CAM proposal may turn out to be
complex in implementation.

Thank you
Sivasubramanian M

>
> a.
>
>
> 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, issuing
> > 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."
> >
> >
>
>
>