Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Additional Harms

["Phil Buckingham" <pjbuckingham@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eric & Barry,

Thanks for this. Re the phase " the real parties in interest will be able to 
effectively disguise their investment in various corporate structures "
I think this is a given - this practice is bound to happen , will need to 
happen with the current restriction on vertical integration .
But it will happen whether there is 0% or 100 % VI but MORE likely  as you 
go towards 0% .
This is another can of worms , which I feel the DAGs have not addressed . 
However the accountant evaluators should pick up on these structures and if 
they not satisfied - throw out the gTLD application.
If missed by the evaluators it will be /should be  picked up by good 
compliance / audit controls/ risk assessments .!!!!!
Think this outside the remit of this VI WG.

Quite frankly I am, personally , waiting on the outcome of the ICANN Board 
retreat to see if we get any guidance on how to move this VI WG forward. I 
am sure many of  you fellow VI WG members are feeling the same  ?
regards

Phil


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Additional Harms


> Barry,
>
> Thanks for the reminder.
>
> Waaaaay back in the trajectory of the VI WG I asked the co-chairs to ask 
> Staff to dredge up Kurt's letter to CRAI that scoped their work which 
> surprisingly resulted in a restricted, exploratory VI proposal, one which 
> was pretty shocking at the time.
> The co-chairs thought that was uninteresting, so I made the request 
> myself, via a document disclosure request.
> What I got back (surprisingly quickly) was Kurt's statement of work letter 
> to CRAI, which contained an expression of concern.
> At Ron Andruff's request I sent this to the VI list on June 2nd, with the 
> subject line "Hedging the risk".
> Here is the relevant portion:
>
> "The registry contract prohibit cross-ownership (Language is simiar
> to: the registry operator cannot secure ownership  directy or
> indirecty  in more than 15% of a registrar). In the process to
> estabish new TLDs there has been considerabe interest voiced by
> registrars in appying for new TLDs. This interest is accompanied by
> the beief that registrars will be able to "game" or "get around" the
> separation requirement, i.e., the real parties in interest will be abe
> to effectivey disguise their investment in various corporate structures."
>
> Obviously this isn't a "list of harms". I've pointed out in several notes 
> to the list that the approach taken by both Staff (unilateral contract 
> modification power) and the Board (complete vertical separation) are not 
> phrased as responses to lists of harms, but the elimination of the 
> fundamental mechanisms that allow bad acts.
> I can't be responsible for this "... I recall you mentioning that ICANN 
> staff developed a list of potential harms ..." because I've never 
> represented this as a list of harms. I've also pointed out that the 
> absence of any list of harms is insufficient to make the Staff and Board 
> choices arbitrary or unreasonable.
> Eric
>
> On 9/9/10 12:03 PM, Berry Cobb wrote:
> > Eric,
> >
> > WRT to corralling harms for our list, do you have any information from
> > the posting below?
> >
> > Berry Cobb
> >
> > Infinity Portals LLC
> >
> > berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > http://infinityportals.com
> >
> > 720.839.5735
> >
> > *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Berry Cobb
> > *Sent:* Monday, August 30, 2010 10:53 AM
> > *To:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > *Subject:* [gnso-vi-feb10] Additional Harms
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> > In our early discussion of harms, I recall you mentioning that ICANN
> > staff developed a list of potential harms and perhaps presented on the
> > topic in some capacity. Can you please advise the group as to the
> > details of where and when this occurred? I think it is important that
> > we not recreate the wheel is some of this information already exists
> > and it will also allow us to ensure the list we develop in the WG is
> > more comprehensive.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Berry Cobb
> >
> > Infinity Portals LLC
> >
> > berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > http://infinityportals.com
> >
> > 720.839.5735