Vertical integration charter

[Balleste, Roy]

You have my support!

 

Roy Balleste

Law Library Director &

Associate Professor of Law

St. Thomas University Law Library

16401 NW 37th Avenue

Miami Gardens, FL 33054

305-623-2341

305-623-2337 (fax)

 

________________________________

From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:24 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Vertical integration charter

 

Hi, 

In case any of you didn't catch Avri's forward, let me explain the significance of her email. After the GNSO created a Policy Development Process on vertical integration, a drafting team was formed to charter the Working Group that will be formed. 

 

We now have a draft charter, and we are supposed to get your assent to what is proposed. In one case (Objective 5) there are two versions that we need to select from.

 

The charter we drafted is mostly ok with me, but I am deeply concerned about the way in which short-term political games are diverting attention from the real, long term policy issues that need to be resolved. Specifically, there are legitimate concerns about staff policy-making through the DAG, and Objective 3, 4, and 5 are more about the GNSO asserting some kind of investigative and oversight power over staff than it is about policy making for the long term. I am also concerned about obvious attempts by trademark interests and registries to drag this proceeding out as long as possible, in order to delay or hobble new TLDs. 

 

If you read Objective 5, you see two versions. The second one (proposed by the trademark guys) proposes that the Working Group "determine the possible effects of potential  changes" in registry-registrar contracts. The first one (proposed by me with some amend by Avri) simply asks the WG to make a determination whether the staff-proposed changes constitute "a material deviation" from existing policy.

 

What I fear about the IPC version is the vague, open-ended language. It calls for an investigation of the "possible" effects of "potential changes" on market structure and consumers. This is an agenda for a research project that could easily last two or three years. Moreover, it creates a burden of proof that may be impossible to meet. In such an investigation, any kind of an attempt by new TLD applicants to propose new and innovative structural arrangements could get bogged down and defeated unless they can "prove" that they have good "effects." I am very familiar with the way regulatory agencies apply this kind of "guilty until proven innocent" standard to suppress new market entry. And this is ridiculous in the case of new TLDs, which have no market power to begin with, and really the only TLD that has any market power to worry about is .com anyway.  

 

My version, on the other hand, simply asks the WG to make a determination whether the staff deviated from existing policy/practices in drafting the contract. That is a more objective, well-defined and less open-ended objective and can be completed in a reasonable period of time. 

 

Therefore, I am asking for your support so that Avri and I can legitimate tell the Drafting Team that NCUC/NCSG support the first version of Objective 5.

 

--MM

 

Dear All,

 

Attached is the updated Charter that includes Kristina's alternate proposal for Objective 5.  As Stéphane indicated, please review this version with your constituencies/stakeholder groups and provide your group's comments by no later than 15 UTC Thursday February 25th.  Please make sure to note the version of Objective 5 that you prefer.

 

 

Best Regards,

Margie

 

____________

Margie Milam

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN

____________

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100222/00eea0c2/attachment.html>