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. >