ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI

  • To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:26:15 -0500

On 5 Feb 2010, at 13:57, Jean Christophe VIGNES wrote:

> I agree with MM’s points but still think cross-ownership should be part of 
> the discussion as it is a very tangible issue for most of us.

I tend to agree with the point about CO.  Below is a snippet from a note I just 
wrote in a different context that explains why I do.

> First i need to point out that the issue in VI is not who owns what but 
> rather how the supply to distribution chain is setup between the supply choke 
> point and the sales point and not the corporate model.  yes, the purest model 
> of VI is probably either Shell or Benetton where it is all owned by one 
> corporation (leaving out the complication of franchise ownership and 
> cross-licensing deals).  
> Other then the pure single corporate model there are other ways in which the 
> distribution chain can be limited, i.e other ways to produce VI in the 
> distribution of a single product. Affiliation and cross ownership are two 
> mechanisms by which the distribution of a product can be vertically 
> integrated - depends on the conditions of the contractual arrangement and the 
> way in which distribution and information flow is established.  
> If there is 'full and equal access to all registrars' in the case of 
> affiliations and cross-ownership then no, you do _not_ have VI.   However, if 
> the affiliation or cross-ownership restricts full and equal opportunity to 
> other registrars, then you may begin to see  degrees of vertical integration.
> I am arguing that VI is not a boolean value, but is something that comes in 
> degrees and in several forms.  
> So CO, per se, is not Vertical integration, but it can facilitate 
> arrangements that have the same effect on the distribution channel as VI.  So 
> in reviewing VI, we need to also make sure that affiliations and 
> cross-ownership are not used to game the system and bring about VI of the 
> distribution channel on any new TLDs.
> That is why i think they are linked.

> BTW, I am not arguing any particular normative value on VI, sometimes it may 
> be a good thing and sometimes it may be a bad thing.  I think we need to 
> delineate the conditions under which VI of the distribution chain occurs and 
> need a policy/process to decide when this is ok and when it isn't.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy