Fwd: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] comments on expert advice

[Mawaki Chango]

Milton:
no doubt you're an expert and GNSO processes (or at least the fate of
their results) are more of politics - so I'm hoping you'll be
engaging with your peers who might be consulted by the GNSO.

The problem is (and on that I agree with the LSE analysis:
"individuals' and organizations' primary membership
should be of ICANN as a whole rather than of specific
constituencies") the constituency-based structure of the GNSO makes
an expert from any constituency's ranks suspect to the others. So the
TF rather talks about "independent experts", which in their eyes
means de facto anyone but a notorious advocate of any one
constituency - no matter how expert he is otherwise! This obviously
doesn't prevent the aforesaid person to challenge, contradict or
refutate the views of the ICANN thurifier (or just friendly) experts
;-)

Mawaki


--- Milton Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> Mawaki:
> I don't see any expert advice here.
> By the way, one is not supposed to say this but in this context
> there
> is no avoiding it:
> I AM an expert on DNS economics, and have published, e.g., in
> refereed
> scholarly publications and have been engaged in litigation as an
> expert
> witness on these issues. For some reason neither ICANN staff,
> board, nor
> GNSO seems terribly willing to pay attention to those publications
> or to
> those of any other expert who tells them things they don't want to
> hear.
> GNSO is about politics, not expertise.
>
> >>> Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at YAHOO.COM> 9/16/2006 3:44:58 AM >>>
> Re. the rebid issue and expert advice, here it is...
>
> --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > From: Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [pdp-pcceg-feb06] comments on expert advice
> > To: PDPfeb06 <pdp-pcceg-feb06 at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> > All,
> >
> > here are further inputs re the questions about which we might
> seek
> > expert advice; I roughly mentioned some of them during our
> meeting
> > in
> > Marrakesh. (Unfortunately, I threw away the hard copy of the
> report
> > I
> > annotated at that time and have to do this all over again.)
> >
> > ToR-1: Registry Agreement Renewal
> >
> > Exploring the range of the various renewal standards possible in
> > comparable or related industries: What are the existing
> standards,
> > the (best) practices? BC's statement points out the relevance of
> > having "different renewal qualifications for sponsored TLDs" and
> > more
> > generally, based on the differences in characteristics of the
> > registries. We may be able (or may need expert advice) to
> clarify,
> > beyond the labels used by ICANN to name the different types of
> > registries, how truly different registries do we have in terms of
> > different business models, economics and policy.
> >
> > Presumptive renewal: Is it possible to reconciliate this option
> > with
> > the objective of continuously ensuring that registries will do
> > their
> > best to provide the best service at the best price possible for
> the
> > end user? Are there any instruments and practices to achieve
> this?
> >
> > No presumptive renewal: It would be good to clearly document the
> > case
> > of .net rebid mentioned by BC with regard to this issue. Are
> there
> > practices and procedures that are, or can be, generalizable and
> > institutionalized to ensure the rebid process provide the
> > opportunity
> > to improve the registry services without necessarily taking from
> > them
> > the agreement (unless there are crime, breach of contract,
> repeated
> > failure, etc.)? What are the shortcomings of that type of rebid
> > (any
> > secondary effects?), do the advantages outweigh those? How
> credible
> > such process will be if it becomes a common practice in the
> > ICANN/registry industry?
> >
> > BC, p.20: "renewal in these [other] industries arises because the
> > involve capital-intensive investments in very long-life assets
> and
> > often include high licensing or authorization fees [...], which
> is
> > not the case with gTLD registries."
> > We may need expert material (or advice) of comparative study of
> the
> > TLD industry with other ICT industries: - structure of the
> > industry;
> > - level of investment; - cost-benefit analysis including analysis
> > of
> > return on investment, etc.
> >
> > ***
> > I thought I would be able to carry on with the ToR-3 (Price
> > controls), but I unfortunately have to stop here for now.
> >
> > Liz, thank you for the overview on the expert materials; I wish I
> > had
> > the time to go into detail at least of the Singapore procedures
> > that
> > look very rich. Also my apologies if we haven't been able to
> follow
> > up on every single point that we discussed inside and outside the
> > TF
> > meeting in Marrakesh (Milton hasn't been much available since,
> both
> > because he first was too busy and then, and still, on vacation).
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Mawaki
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Mawaki Chango <ki_chango at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think the dialogue with the experts should be directly
> on
> > > the
> > > TORs, or on each TOR. We do need subquestions - more specific
> > > questions under the relevant TOR we think we need that
> > consultation
> > > on. I might post later on one or two of those possible
> > > sub-questions.
> > >
> > > Mawaki
> > >
> >
> >
>