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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I think the list of "harms" is pretty well known and could easily be 
incorporated into contracts - if they are not already!
 - front-running
 - discriminatory treatment of non-owned registrars
etc.
________________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: "livability"

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


On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Alan Greenberg 
<alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 
<mueller@xxxxxxx<mailto: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