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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

We have spoken to competition authorities in the U.S. and Europe. Just today, I 
spoke with the Competition Committee of Turkey, at the OECD meeting in Paris. 
They liked the CAM proposal. They referred to a specific division of their 
authority that focuses on  Internet, ICT related issues. The implementation 
problems are figments of your imagination, Alan. But I love the way someone 
with no background in regulatory economics can dismiss something as 
non-implementable. Shows a certain self-confidence. Good on ya. 
--MM 

________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:40 PM
To: 'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Caution about results from Original Poll

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.