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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

i'm going to proceed with the proposal as it stands then -- you're right Siva, 
we've got a lot of work to do on "harms" but that will probably have to wait 
until we get past this Initial Report hurdle.

thanks,

mikey


On Jul 13, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:

> 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.)
> 
> 
> 

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)