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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

For someone who in your next message supports not 
mis-characterizing people, you may want to note 
that my message said "without prior concrete 
agreement of competition authorities". If you 
have such agreement, even if not concrete, please do share it with us.
Alan

At 16/06/2010 07:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 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.