NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 6 Mar 2011 14:02:37 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
I have to say that except a few points,  i agree with how the Board 
classified GAC's requests.

Point 5 on the integration of registries and registrars:

My beef with institutionalizing a market [no market can ever be deemed 
pre-political, pre-cultural or pre-legal, so ... a market always is 
institutionnalized ==> that should take care of 
"regulation/anti-regulations" debates] where the rules of the game favor 
integration is that, under the actual terms of national competition 
laws, "market power" is a theoretical impossibility.

IMHO, as a general rule but the devil is in the details, for the markets 
with amazingly complex and extended value chains
==> let's just try a market devoid of the "power" variable for a change, 
and see what it would get us.

In my mind, that would be true "laisser faire", while the usual "laisser 
faire" [i.e. enabling integration] is in fact more about letting 
competition use other strategical assets [such as power] than just cost, 
price, productivity, and performance. This analysis can be showed wrong 
for some particular markets, and maybe names and numbers are such a 
market...  I will admit that i have spent less time thinking about the 
particular integration impact of registry and registrar operations then 
i have for other markets (i.e. telecommunications services markets), and 
I will welcome your references on this point.

In any case, except for this view of mine which i don't expect to be 
shared accross NCUC members, i have to say that i find myself well 
represented by the Board in its answer to the GAC.

Some other points:

6.2.1 if the timeframe for a responding party is too short already. 
Don't know about that.

Not sure what to think about  6.2.5 either. However, the Board's 
consistent 2s in the 6.2.x issues are commendable.

6.2.10.1 is outright funny ;)

I am uneasy with some compromises (e.g. 6.4.2) but ...

Nicolas


On 3/6/2011 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Chair of ICANN's Board responded via email to Govts (GAC) on policy disagreements&  compromises for top-level Internet domain names:
>   http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05mar11-en.pdf
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2