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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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 <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 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.
>

I did not say after-the-fact.

>
> Alan
>