I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical Integration WG for dummies

Eric Brunner-Williams brunner at nic-naa.net
Mon Jul 26 18:16:49 CDT 2010


On 7/26/10 6:00 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I found Milton Mueller's summary - noted at
> http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1006- useful.
>
> Is there anything there that you would disagree with?

He errors in characterizing the position statements as static, rather 
than evolving over time. His own position is now in its 3rd iteration.

1. He errors in describing DAGv4 as the Nairobi Resolution. The cross 
ownership limit at Nairobi was 0%. The same cross ownership limit in 
DAGv4 is 2%.

Under a Zero rule, none of Verisign, Afilias, NeuStar, Core and 
Midlands would be allowed to provide registry services to new gTLD 
applicants, or to apply for new gTLDs in their own right, as all have 
non-zero registrar ownership.

Under a 2% rule, Verisign's market cap, and CORE's membership model, 
and perhaps NeuStar's market cap and resolution of the NeuLevel 
partnership with Melbourne IT, a registrar, would be allowed, and 
Afilias and Midlands would not be allowed, to provide registry 
services to new gTLD applicants, or to apply for new gTLDs in their 
own right, as all have less than 2% registrar ownership.

[There is a nuance in the CORE 2% question. CORE has more than 50 
members, and the question goes to whether control is properly 
aggregated by individual independent members.]

2. He errors in particular in characterizing the RACK+ position as 
without exceptions.

He also uses "status quo" rather than accurately characterizing the 
proposal, which is a different form of error.

And it is RACK+, not RACK.

3. He errors in particular in characterizing the Free Trade position 
as without limitations. There are limitations, one of which is the 
rejection of "harms" and compliance as a necessity.

4. He errors in particular in characterizing the JN2 position as 
without limitations other than no self-sales. There is a 15% cap for 
the first 18 months and exceptions from that require conditional 
approval, and a significant commitment to compliance as a deterrent to 
"harms".

And it is JN2, not JN2+ (the post-JN2 position developed at Brussels 
is not described).

5. He errors in omitting to mention that the "special panel" is 
composed of the competition authorities of some states, e.g., the US 
DOJ Antitrust Division, is going to review in finite time applications 
by, let us say, the United Mine Workers of America for .appalachia, in 
which the UMWA proposes to acquire 16% or more of the largest 
registrar in West Virginia, or the example of your choice in Lower 
Elbonia.

He also manages not to point out how many supporters there are for his 
proposal.

6. He errors in assigning percentages to positions in polls.

7. He errors in stating that the VI WG is "tasked with coming up with 
a solution before the ICANN board next meets in September." That would 
be convenient for the hypothetical new gTLD round, but the VI WG is 
tasked with coming up with a policy proposal, if not now, before the 
heat death of the universe.

8. Make up your own #8, it is a target rich environment.

Eric




More information about the NANOG mailing list