ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

  • To: "'Mike O'Connor'" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>, vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:42:00 -0400

> i'm really curious how the MaPO group got that matrix of theirs pulled
> together.  i know there's a lot of overlap between our two groups.  can
> somebody who was in that group chime in with a quick summary of what
> the sequence of events was?  i'm hoping that might show us a way

Just saw this. 

Jeff N. is right that the major difference is the existence in this group of 
direct distributional conflicts among businesses. There are economic interests 
in the outcome. In particular, one group of economic interests has proven 
intransigent about the status quo. If you need consensus to move away from the 
status quo, then the economic beneficiaries of the status quo can always block 
consensus. That is a recurring problem in ICANN policy processes, we 
experienced it also in the Whois debates. So we remain on the status quo even 
though there is no consensus about it. 

The MAPO group did not, in fact, agree that some or many TLDs should be 
censored. I know of at least three participants who oppose any censorship of 
TLDs. But we all had a motive to come to an agreement because none of us liked 
the status quo.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy