You have my support!
Roy Balleste
Law Library Director &
Associate Professor of Law
305-623-2341
305-623-2337 (fax)
From: Non-Commercial
User Constituency [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010
7:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
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
____________