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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 11/06/2010 08:18 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:


> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Alan Greenberg 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 11/06/2010 12:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote:
> > Dear Milton Mueller,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Milton L Mueller 
> > <<mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx>mueller@xxxxxxx> 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.
> >
> > As you have noticed and quoted in one of your later messages in 
> > this thread, I have indicated some broad measures. A lot of work 
> > needs to be done in identifying  harms, categorizing harms and 
> > ranking them in terms of the intensity of harm to the Registrants / 
> > Internet. Then the penalties can be discussed and after that it 
> > would have to be explored if some or most of the harm can be 
> > contained by the Domain Industry by an internal code of good 
> > practices. I don't feel that it would be practical for ICANN to 
> > announce a table of harms and penalties and 'discipline' the domain 
> > industry like a school master. Sooner or later the Domain Industry 
> > has to work within and evolve practices that are fair to one 
> > another for a start, and then develop and agree on good practices 
> > that are fair to the Internet and fair to ICANN and fair to the 
> > Registrants. There would be some areas left out, some practices on 
> > which the Domain Industry would be reluctant to restrain itself. 
> > The community can look at those areas, focus on those areas and 
> > negotiate with the Industry, prescribe measures to control those 
> > harms that the Industry clings to. It is a lot of work, definitely 
> > not work for one person, not in such a hurry.
> > Thank you for your positive remarks about the FT proposal.
> The problem with this is that ICANN will not be in a position to 
> take ANY action if the causes for action (ie the harms or actions 
> that lead to them) and the remedies are not codified in the 
> appropriate contracts. And that included the contracts with the 
> accredited registrars. So it cannot be left to community discussions 
> after-the-fact.
>
> I did not say after-the-fact.
Then you need to define exactly who will negotiate what (and all 
parties to a negotiation actually need to be talking to each other) 
and explain how this will come to closure in sufficient time to 
publish the final Applicant Guidebook.
Many of us have wish-lists of what we would really like to see, but 
the challenge is to finalize all of the details without delaying the 
first round of applications.
Alan