RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Re: Draft agenda for the VI WG call next week

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Jeff, 


> Why are you tying the vertical integration issue with equal access.

I am doing exactly the opposite. I am insisting that they are separate and 
distinct things, and if equal access is enforced you don't have real vertical 
integration. 

> For example, if the motivation is to allow vertical integration to allow
> innovation, ICANN's economists have acknowledged on a number of
> occassions that the equal access requirement runs counter to the notion
> of innovation and competition at the registry level.  It may help

Without expressing an opinion on the normative judgment here (VI leads to 
innovation and competition among registries), in order to make that argument 
you have to distinguish between mere cross-ownership, which leaves Ry-Rr 
separation in place, and real VI, which eliminates that distinction. 

> competition at the registrar level but not the registry level.  That was
> the reason we could not support the drafting team's definitions.   We
> must analyze those subjects separately.

In that respect, we are in violent agreement, Jeff.
Now I am going to spend an hour trying to figure out why that wasn't evident 
from my message....
Please re-read my original message below and tell  me where I went wrong and 
confused you:

> Just a reminder that "co-ownership" (i.e., what normal people in
> regulatory economics call _cross-ownership_) is not the same thing as
> "vertical integration." A registry and registrar can be 100% owned by
> the same company, but if equivalent and nondiscriminatory access is
> required of the registry by ICANN contracts, and that separation is
> adequately enforced, they are not vertically integrated, they are merely
> jointly owned.
> 
> I will insist on maintaining this distinction as we go forward. It is
> important.