RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Their report is out there for reveiw by anyone. I have not heard any
reason why it will benefit the WG to have a special call with them. And
I would expect that if we do, others will be allowed to arrange similar
calls with other economists they may like the WG to consult.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the
Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 10:14 am
To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>


Margie,

First, I appreciate the scheduling of Salop and Wright at some other
time than Monday.

I'm cc'ing the Working Group list as it is possible that some have
heard Mssrs. Salop and Wright fewer times than I have, and may have
the impression that the economists retained by ICANN have conducted an
independent study of the actual market for name to address mapping
services.

Second, would you be so kind as to pass on two questions to each?

Q1. What specific facts about public resource identifiers (aka "domain
names") and the public routing infrastructure (aka "addresses") and
their technical coordination and management are relevant to each of
their recommendations?

Q2. Assuming one or more specific facts are relevant to their
recommendations, what change to that fact or facts would be necessary
to cause a change in each of their recommendations?

I prefer a written response, as it is easier to cite than an offset in
an audio log, and it allows the response, if any, to be studied,
rather than a spontaneous utterance.

Thanks in advance,
Eric