[ncsg-policy] Re: One or two PDPs?

[William Drake]

Hi M

On Jan 26, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Bill
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> Actually, the current motion says " the GNSO Council will consider
>> initiating a PDP on this issue 1 year after the launch of the new gTLD
>> program."
> 
> That's a bit far off. How about "will initiate immediately after the launch of the new gTLD program."?

I would be quite fine with that, hence the question.  This debate has conflated, inter alia the questions of whether there should be a PDP to bring some principled order to the realm with the question of timing.  If even the registries are opposing a PDP now, and unless someone can demonstrate that harm would occur from JM in the meanwhile, I'm inclined to think we can wait and approach the broader nexus down the line.  Do other councilors feel differently, or shall we propose an amendment to motion 1?

> Even Avri and I agree that VI and private TLDs raise major new issues. Assuming that the launch is based on current policy, which requires separation of registries and registrars but allows JM/CO, it means that vertically integrated TLDs and private TLDs cannot exist yet. Therefore we should move on establishing policies for them as soon as possible. 
> 
> I suspect the registrars know that. What's getting in the way here is the tendentious attempt to link big, long-term VI issues with short-term minor issues like JM/CO. The registrars probably fear that a PDP that links those two will interfere with their efforts to enter the market using JM arrangements and will interfere with creating new TLDs and new competition. And frankly, I think they are right. 
> 
>> We could propose making that "will initiate" in the hope of
>> eventually replacing ad hoc implementation practices with a coherent
>> policy, but that wouldn't be sufficient if we really believe that in the
>> meanwhile damage could be done to competition and consumer interests.
>> I've not seen anything that give me confidence in believing either way,
>> that this will or won't occur; it seems like blue skies guesswork.
> 
> As I just said in the earlier message today, JM/CO retains equal access to a registry and therefore avoids all the issues associated with VI. It seems to me that Avri is the only person who refuses to accept this fact, whereas several in the constituency have expressed support for separate proceedings. I think our Council reps need to acknowledge this and move on accordingly.
> 
> I don't think the functional separation of registry and registrar and the continued existence of equal access is "blue skies guesswork." It's a fact.
> Current policy and implementation safeguard competition by maintaining that separation. JM/CO is, admittedly, a closer relationship but since it has already existed for years in some small TLDs, tell me what the consumer harms are? If they exist, you ought to be able to demonstrate them. 

I didn't mean functional separation per se is guesswork, but rather that whether JM/CO could cause harm going forward seems like it.  You're convince there's sufficient safeguards, others seem less certain, but I've not seen anyone make a detailed argument either way.  That said, I have a harder time getting behind ex ante than ex post measures in such situations.
> 
>> Would anyone care to make the case for imminent harm ensuing from a delay?
>> 
> 
> Again, it depends on whether you are talking about bundling the long term and short term issues or not. 

In the above context, just the short.
> 
> Delaying a PDP on VI and private TLDs too long does cause harm. If you are only talking about major changes allowing VI and private TLDs, the harm from a delay is that there may be a significant market that is suppressed for too long by not developing policies that allow that kind of entry into the market. 

Well, so define "too long."  If true VI and private TLDs can wait a year from launch then I'd say let's return to them then rather than further complicating an already complicated discussion now.  Going into this particular Council meeting and trying to redirect the whole conversation doesn't seem terribly promising.  If instead it's urgent then we'd need complete amendment language immediately that'd fit motion 1 or 2, which in any event the other SGs would not be ready to ok as they'd have to consult internally.

Cheers,

Bill