Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Caution about results from Original Poll

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I've not commented much, or directly, on the competition authority
proposal, but it is hard to imagine its implementation except as a
kind of RSTEP exercise that never actually does involve a competition
authority anywhere.

I've also no commented much, or directly, on the free trade proposal,
though I have tried and failed to engage one of four advocates of a
similar proposal on the inherent question of what mechanisms could be
useful, and what the preconditions are. Asserting a control is
possible but not making an attempt to come up with control ideas and
testing them is a failure to implement. Unfortunately, the failure to
implement concerns more than just one proposal, as the JN proposal has
an audit as a critical component.

I have commented on both the Board resolution, and the Staff's
interpretation of it, the 0% and 2% rules, generally, respectively.
Voting on gravity is slightly silly. I see an implementation problem
in any all-but-one-may-proceed proposal, so I think the Staff's
proposal is actually less implementable than the Board's resolution,
but (a) stuff goes into the DAG to be reviewed and improved, and (b)
Staff may have picked up on the de minimus problem and missed the
fail-one-of-four feature.

Like Alan I have some "'prefers' (and they include some level of
vertical integration for both special cases and even general gTLDs
with sufficient controls and constraints)".

Eric

On 6/16/10 12:40 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I have a different view of the first poll. Several of the options, while
> they may be philosophically attractive to respondents, in my view, are
> not particularly implementable (and I know that some will disagree with
> this view).
> 
> There are three:
> 
> - Board motion. In "interpreting" the Board motion, staff made a number
> of significant changes which presumably change it from a philosophical
> concept to something they feel can be implemented. I have to accept that
> the Board has tacitly approved of these. So having people vote on
> whether the Board motion is a preferred choice is moot.
> 
> - CAM. For reasons I and others have given many times, without prior
> concrete agreement of competition authorities in at least the prime
> areas of where gTLDs will be homed and offered, we have no knowledge of
> whether this can be implemented. And that is before my (and others)
> concern about how the different authorities will interpret the scope of
> the market.
> 
> - Free Trade. Siva, the proposer of this model, has agreed that it
> requires prior negotiation to be concluded to address the harms and
> remedies. Some might question that this is not likely possible, but
> assuming it is, I believe that there is NO chance that such negotiations
> could be concluded in time to make the final Applicant Guidebook
> (generally accepted as August/September at the latest if the AG is to be
> published this calendar year).
> 
> It is too late to re-run the poll, and I would not support it in any
> case, but it is really time that we focus on what goes into the AG, and
> not what we want for the longer term.
> 
> From my position, I have a lot of "prefers" (and they include some level
> of vertical integration for both special cases and even general gTLDs
> with sufficient controls and constraints), but I am not at all
> optimistic that we can satisfy all of them prior to AG publication, and
> I am determined that we not make short term decisions that de facto take
> options off the table for the longer-term discussions.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 16/06/2010 09:58 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> All,
>>  
>> I do believe the first poll on the proposals was in fact useful and a
>> really good exercise.  And I am not just saying that because the JN2
>> proposal got the most “yes” votes.  My caution, however, is that some
>> are now describing the “Free Trade” proposal as the one that most
>> people support because of the number of people that either said “yes”
>> or “can live with.”  I do not believe that view is entirely accurate. 
>> This is because both the JN2 proposal and the RACK+ proposal both
>> dealt with limitations on ownership/control.  People were divided on
>> how exactly to limit ownership/control, but not on the concept of
>> whether to apply restrictions.
>>  
>> The analogy I use is my oldest daughter’s birthday party this year
>> where the kids had a choice of “Mixed Fruit”, “Chocolate Ice Cream” or
>> “Vanilla Ice Cream”.   7 kids (surprisingly) chose mixed fruit, 6 kids
>> chose chocolate ice cream and 6 kids chose “Vanilla Ice Cream”.  So of
>> the 19 kids at the party, more of them chose Fruit than any other
>> choice, so that would be a true statement.  However, it would also be
>> true that more kids choice “Ice Cream” in general instead of fruit.
>>  
>> Here we have the same type of thing.  Taken one way, more people chose
>> the Free Trade Proposal than chose RACK.  But, looked at a different
>> way, more people chose to apply limits on cross ownership/control than
>> chose Free Trade.
>>  
>> We just need to remember the ice cream/mixed fruit analogy going forward.
>>  
>> P.S.  Never have a party with 19 screaming 5 year olds and offer them
>> ice cream….very messy and the sugar high afterwards is a killer J
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy*
>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166
>> *Office: *+1.571.434.5772  *Mobile: *+1.202.549.5079  *Fax:
>> *+1.703.738.7965 */* jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> <mailto:jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxxx>   */* www.neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz/>      
>>
>> The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
>> the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
>> and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient
>> you have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
>> dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
>> prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
>> notify us immediately and delete the original message.
>>