Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Free Trade Proposal

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Mike and Berry,

I am sorry, I did not notice that the comment I made was on the main list
while all the discussions we have had since this morning was on a sub-list.

On the main list which has just received the revised proposal, I made my
observations at the last minute, didn't quite see that it sounded a bit out
of place, this is entirely unintended.

I wanted to point out that the proposal needs to talk about how harms will
be addressed. This point about harms isn't included in the revised proposal
possibly because it doesn't fit into the context of the current revision.  I
understand that the "harms" issue is being well represented by others in the
main group -- there is no chance of it getting lost.

Sivasubramanian M






On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Dear Mike and Berry,
>
> The final version is one half of the original Free Trade proposal.
>
> The essence of the original free trade model was a proposal that all limits
> should  be completely lifted with a focus on the list of harms with the
> observation that the discussion on limits actually distracts the attention
> away from the
> issues in vertical integration (Discrimination, Insider trading, Domain
> registration
> abuse, Domain tasting, Front-running, Predatory pricing, Account lock-ins,
> Transfer out pricing, Less product variety)
>
> In summary, one half of the proposal was that all limits are lifted. The
> other half was that measures are devised to safeguard against harms.
> Together it made the Free Trade proposal.
>
> The revised proposal is emphatic on the first half of the original
> proposal. But on harms, it observes that "The revised draft observes that
> "No harms have been shown to have occurred unmanageably to date, in any
> namespace, due to lack of VI/CO restrictions." and the toughest statement is
> " Clarity in rules would greatly benefit new TLD operators"ICANN funding of
> contractual compliance ... must match the demands of the new TLD expansion"
>
> This is not enough to capture the spirit of the Free Trade proposal. What
> we have here - at the moment - is an incomplete revision. If this revised
> proposal intends to examine harms and propose measures to prevent harms, it
> is not so reflected in this revision.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Mike O'Connor <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> thanks Berry (and all).
>>
>> mikey
>>
>>
>> On Jul 13, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
>>
>>  VI WG,
>>
>> Attached is the Free Trade model based on Mikey’s format.  Please post any
>> questions the WG may have to the list.
>>
>> Free Trade team, if you catch any misstatements, please advise and I will
>> funnel all updates.  I appreciate the group’s work over the last 24 hours.
>> Our discussions around this model combined with our  compromise made this a
>> great experience.
>>
>> Thank you.  B
>>
>>
>> Berry Cobb
>> Infinity Portals LLC
>> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://infinityportals.com
>> 866.921.8891
>>
>> <FreeTrade_Model_v1.0.pdf>
>>
>>
>>     - - - - - - - - -
>> phone  651-647-6109
>> fax   866-280-2356
>> web  http://www.haven2.com
>> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
>> etc.)
>>
>>
>