Re: [alac] Re: DRAFT: Statement on Registry Services.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2004-01-12 18:54:45 +0900, Izumi Aizu wrote:

> 1) Do we propose that registries have to prove that there is no
> harm, and then who will evaluate that proof?

> Put them into public comment, and let the Board finally decide?
> Could we make some kind of suggestion about these specific procedure?
> Or leave it as general?

Something like that, I guess.

Essentially the "market measurability" we are talking about is the
suggested quick-look check that's done as a first step.  If
community interest can be measured in terms of market impact, then
ICANN should normally let a proposed change pass -- unless there's
some skeleton in the closet that creates intolerable harm.
Conversely, if the community interest can't be measured, then there
should be a more elaborate process, and it should be the registry's
burden to convince the community that the proposed change does not
lead to considerable harm, or that the harm is worth the benefit.

I'll clarify the relationship between the burdene of proof remarks
and the quick-look check.

> 2) I agree that registries should not leverage their monopoly
> position into other markets. Do we have some more "guidelines" as
> to how specifically we can define "bad behavior" by leveraging
> into other markets? There can be grey areas.

Since there are many shades of grey, I'd rather not attempt to map
these to black and white in our statement.  The analysis needed here
can quickly become extraordinarily complex, and it will depend on
the specific proposal in question.  To give just one example, is WLS
a proposal that should have been passed (as it was), or is it a
proposal that ICANN should have dropped?  I have heared convincing
arguments for both outcomes, but I haven't heared (or found) the
definitive argument, yet.  (I'm leaning towards saying that WLS was
the wrong move, though, and that instead the allocation of
transaction costs in the shared registry system should have been
revised to take care of the tragedy of the commons that was taking
place there -- also known as "add storms" -- while preserving a
competitive environment in which prices are determined by the
market.)

There's, of course, a second side to these complexities: And that's
the question whether ICANN is indeed the entity that should attempt
to analyse the competition (and pricing) aspects of adding new
services.  The pricing of WLS -- and of redeeming domain names that
slipped -- hint that ICANN is less than perfectly equipped to deal
with economic and business issues.

> I support that this be put into our "public comment" process as Denise
> wrote, if we have that time frame.

Since only two constituencies have published statements so far, and
since the council is going to meet on January 22nd, I'd suggest that
we forward the text as a preliminary statement to the Council, and
put it up for public comment separately.  If there are significant
comments (including, possibly, input from at-large structures?), we
can add that to the discussion later on.

-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/