Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

[Volker Greimann - Key-Systems GmbH <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

CAM has in my view one major flaw as it abandons the equal access 
principle for registrars and goes so far as to proposae no registrar is 
necessary even for community TLDs, a position I just cannot sign on to. 
In its other aspects, CAM has some very interesting ideas and proposals 
for a system of preliminary checks, many of which bear consideration for 
implementation.
We still have a long way ahead of us with respect to buiding a system to 
prevent, restrict or punish abuse prior to and after delegation and I 
see many aspects from CAM's regulatory framework that would come into 
play at that stage.
Volker
> The way in which I can see someone living with the free-trade and not the CAM 
> is if they don't believe there should be any regulation or controls, i.e. a 
> completely - laissez-faire open system.
>
> So when I checked both, I assumed the bottom-up policy driven imposition of 
> some regulatory framework, but I can imagine that others do not want such a 
> framework.
>
> I think for some people that is, in fact, a big problem with the CAM proposal, 
> that it contains an ongoing notion of regulation on the behavior of registrars 
> in situation where there is co-ownership and affiliation with a registry or 
> RSP.  Some do not like the idea of regulation in general and some do not feel 
> it could be implemented in time to not delay the start of open season on gTLDS 
> and think that CO limitations are good enough to do the trick.  I disagree, but 
> I can see the points of view.  I once tried believing in a world without 
> regulatory frameworks (really worked at since so many people I respected 
> thought that way), but was taught  by experience that it doesn't work.  And I 
> believe that the basic structure of a regulatory framework, as we described in 
> CAM is enough to get started, though we would have to work hard over the next 
> months to make sure the full initial policy was in place before the beginning 
> of applications.
>
> And while I have an extremely  strong aversion to ICANN making policy, I have 
> an equally strong support of ICANN enforcing policy and believe it is something 
> they can do effectively if the policy requires them to do so.
>
> a.
>
> On 11 Jun 2010, at 09:53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>   
> > Another point (I am obviously in the process of filling out the poll)
> >
> > The "free trade" proposal is not really a proposal but a philosophy or 
> > approach. It says that we should have a more open market and that cross ownership limits 
> > are not the proper tool for counteracting stated or perceived harms. I agree. In this 
> > respect, it is identical to the CAM proposal. However, it does not propose any specific 
> > method for preventing harms. The CAM proposal does, proposing that any anticipated harms 
> > could be checked by auditing requirements and by antitrust checks.
> >
> > Thus, it is truly incomprehensible to me how anyone could vote that they support or could "live with" with "free trade" proposal and "oppose" the CAM proposal. It just doesn't make any sense. 
> >
> > I also wish to state that having this poll was a very good idea. Viewing the selections is really an eye-opener and I think greatly advances the dialogue. 
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >     
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> > > feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> > > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2010 9:35 AM
> > > To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] "livability"
> > >
> > >
> > > When we talk about whether one can "live with" the DAGv4 proposal, I
> > > have one major uncertainty. My understanding is that DAGv4 ownership
> > > limits and separations would ONLY apply to new applicants, and NOT to
> > > incumbents and their existing TLDs. Thus, DAGv4 would prevent
> > > registrars from having any significant ownership interest in registries
> > > of new gTLDs, but it would not require Afilias/Neustar/VeriSign et al
> > > to divest their existing ownership interests in registrars. Is that
> > > correct?
> > >
> > > Milton L. Mueller
> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > > XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
> > >
> > >
> > >       
> >     
>
>   

--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
66482 Zweibrücken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Prager Ring 4-12
DE-66482 Zweibruecken
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 861
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 1861 - Zweibruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.