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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

If we are starting the discussion anew, I would agree. In fact, that's
what I would really prefer to have happen. To date, I think the whole
VI/CO issue has been approached haphazardly, and we are just continuing
down the same path.

Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the
Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 11:18 am
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

I think the more calls with economists or regulators or competition
authority experts ... that have some clue to offer all the better. And
since these will be recorded, it offers a resource we can go back to.
Perhaps we can even ask for them to be transcribed.

I would suggest that if any of us can't make it, perhaps we can send in
a question that the Chair's can ask on our behalf.

thanks
a.



On 28 Apr 2010, at 11:50, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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
> 
>