RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> That's not the way the system works -- you do something, and then get
> called on the carpet. Only the largest companies, particularly in merger
> situations, go before the FTC for per-clearance and evaluation, and then
> only by virtue of their size and dominance in the field. I don't see the
> FTC, or any equivalent, having the time or resources for a pre-clearance
> process for new gTLDs. I wish I did, but I don't.
> 

That's precisely the point, Kathy. Competition authorities will _not_ give you 
a green light, but they _will_ give you a red light if the combination involves 
big players with market power and thus requires an investigation. So, no word 
from the competition authorities, no problem. The MMA proposal is better 
conceived as _notification_ of competition authorities rather than as seeking 
their explicit written approval. At least that's the way I understand it. And 
that understanding is perfectly consistent with what you say above.  OTOH if we 
are expecting to get explicit, written approval for 200+ cases of tiny little 
registrar-registry combos seeking 2% shares of each other then I would agree - 
the proposal doesn't work. 

Indeed, I suspect that despite the dire predictions we sometimes hear on this 
list, most competition authorities would laugh in your face if you suggested 
that letting Enom (current registry market share: 0%, current registrar market 
share ~10%) own more than 50% of a new registrar (relevant market share: 0%) 
constituted a "competition policy" problem, or any of 100 other examples one 
could provide.  The only players that would attract notice under such a regime 
are GoDaddy, VeriSign, and some big ccTLDs. Andin those cases, the local 
competition authority is in a much better position to assess consumer impact, 
define the relevant market, etc. 

--MM