Evan: You are right; there is no settled At-Large consensus on vertical integration and we must take care that this view is still-born. I am on record and clearly in the camp of the "revisionists" for the specific reasons you noted plus another or two. That this position - as represented by the proposal - attracted so wide a support cannot be faulted to anything more than its internal consistency and rational perspective. A comment from Alan about the 'revisionist' position I support was misconstrued by some to mean it was the 'big business' position that was being aided and abetted. I clarified Alan's statement by reminding all that of all the proposals, the only one that had a pure At-Large footprint was that proposed by Sivas which happens to formalize the principles that has become the 'revisionist' view; a fundamental change in the philosophy of regulation that focused on promoting positive values for users, protection from harm to users howsoever caused, assured penalties for causing harm and the rejection of a priori restrictions absent evidence of harm. ICANN should not be in the business of enabling restraints on trade, favouring one business model over another or picking winners in the domain marketplace. I believe that even boards consisting of good people can be wrong-headed in time. And wrong-headedness must be challenged to reassess, retool and change if we are not to connive at error. I am unalterably opposed to any notion that says "it is so and must always be so", especially in this business we find ourselves. It is on these bases that I find the notion that a 15% threshold for cross ownership as the way to protect users from harm nothing more than a fallacy of reason that I cannot support. Business models in and of themselves do not cause harm. It is the actions that are entertained in furtherance of business objectives that do. And these are not unique to any business model. Crooks are everywhere. Even, as we know, in the very bosom of Christendom. Carlton ========================================================================================================================= -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:25 AM To: ICANN ALAC list Subject: [ALAC] ALAC & VI Hello all, In the ICANN context, "VI" is neither a Unix text editor nor the Virgin Islands, but "Vertical Integration" -- the ongoing debate within ICANN on the permissible level of cross-ownership between registries and registrars, and to what extent registries should be permitted to provide both services (ie, "selling direct") The issue is complex and the main topic of a 70-member committee on which opinion appears to have split along two general points of view: - The "cautious" -- those who believe that the status quo should be preserved and that registries -- with some specific exceptions -- must resell their domains through registrars - The "revisionists" -- those who believe that this is a debate over business models, and that ICANN should withdraw from regulation of business models. There are people within ALAC that I have heard who have expressed both points of view (as well as many nuanced hybrids), and to my knowledge no specific At-Large position has been taken. In this context I was surprised to talk to some members of the VI working group today in the Brussels conference hallways. These people have the distinct and clear impression that ALAC -- based on its members' participation in the WG -- is solidly and vocally in favour of the "cautious" viewpoint. Whether or not the At-Large members of that WG have tried to convey such a one-sided impression, this appears to be the view that other committee members are taking away. I would ask the members of At-Large to keep this in mind, and to please convey to that WG the diversity of opinion that actually exists within our community. Having said all this, I would also frankly say that, given all the issues within ICANN that impact end-users, VI is not in the top five and maybe not even in the top 10. It is of moderate concern to me because it is indicative of ICANN's "feature creep" that has the body getting into areas (regulating business models, trademarks, and morality) in which it has little expertise and even less authority. I would ask the At-Large members of that WG to please ensure that its members are aware that our community's views on this issue are as diverse as they are in the WG itself. If doing so means inviting more people into the WG to balance existing personal viewpoints, then let's do that. -- - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac