Dan has had trouble getting this message through to the list. I forward it on his behalf.
--MM
________________________________________
From: Dan Krimm [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 12:19 AM
To: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Fwd: Re: One or two PDPs?

Hi Milton,

I sent this a little while ago, and I haven't seen it come through the
list.  I sent another message a couple days ago that I never saw come
through either.  I've received others' messages, so I appear to still be on
the list, at least for receiving messages.

Not sure what's up, but I wanted you to know I'd sent this, FWIW.

>At 11:05 PM -0500 1/23/10, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>... I also ask that members of the NCUC who agree with me (or disagree
>>with me) to please express their views.
>>
>
>
>I haven't paid close attention to a lot of the details passing through
>this list, but there has been enough exchange here for me to explore the
>terrain.
>
>But first of all, my tendency right now is to support Milton's point that
>VI is different enough from CO/JM to warrant separate PDPs, especially
>since the historical experience with PDPs is that they don't hold to their
>designated time frames.
>
>I haven't seen full detail of Avri's reasons for wanting a single PDP, but
>on the surface I do see that VI/CO/JM form a sort of continuum of
>increasingly deep relationships between separate entities, in the abstract.
>
>That said, there are cases where a difference in degree ends up
>constituting a meaningful difference in kind (eg. dial-up vs. broadband,
>as it affects the total Internet experience as a user, such as determining
>which sorts of applications function well or not).
>
>Thus, I can understand Milton's argument that true VI (unilaterally
>controlling equity of one entity by another) is different enough from
>CO/JM (where multiple entities remain ultimately self-controlled even if
>they are partnered or cooperative), especially in the context of the
>relationship between registries and registrars vis-a-vis ICANN in
>practice, to treat VI as different in kind from CO/JM.
>
>My experience on the Whois WG in 2007 provided a firsthand view of how
>dysfunctional the consensus process can be at ICANN, when dealing with an
>issue that defies meaningful intrinsic consensus, especially when the
>status quo systematically favors one policy agenda over others, leading to
>energetic stonewalling and delaying and dilution tactics -- i.e., when the
>status quo is the BATNA -- the best alternative to negotiated agreement --
>for some parties at the table.  So I can also understand Milton's point
>that PDPs are more often than not stretched out well beyond the designated
>time frame.
>
>
>In the end, any policy-making exercise is about some policy goal or
>outcome.  I assume that the NCUC's goal in this matter is for market power
>not to be allowed in excess of a degree that might be beneficial in terms
>of operational efficiencies, and close integration of activity between
>registries and registrars might well be seen to grant too much market
>power.  (This assumption might be wrong, though, and if so it would be
>useful to clarify the goal.)
>
>If so, then the tactical question becomes: how is such a policy goal
>defined in some detail (where should we draw the line in terms of "excess"
>market power), and what is the best way to achieve this goal (how do we
>"play the institution" to maximize the probability of getting the right
>outcome)?
>
>I would suggest using a framework along these lines to structure thinking
>about procedural tactics, and not be too married to some sort of abstract
>conception of the business relationships at issue here.  The abstract
>ideas may not be pertinent to the reality of the institutional structures
>at hand.
>
>Whatever decision is made should be driven, I think, by the real details
>of the immediate institutional context, as defined by the desired goal as
>the guiding principle in navigating the institution.
>
>
>Since I haven't been directly involved for awhile, I can't ultimately
>speak to the details here, and if my questions have been answered in the
>past I apologize for missing them.  But I hope this contributes to a
>clarification of process for deciding how to proceed.
>
>Best,
>Dan
>
>
>--
>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
>do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>