Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- To: Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:55:36 -0400
At 11/06/2010 12:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
Dear Milton Mueller,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller
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 problem with this is that ICANN will not be in a position to take
ANY action if the causes for action (ie the harms or actions that
lead to them) and the remedies are not codified in the appropriate
contracts. And that included the contracts with the accredited
registrars. So it cannot be left to community discussions after-the-fact.