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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Actually, I wasn't referring just to this WG, but to the whole VI/CO
issue from day one. But, I guess that's water under bridge.

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 11:53 am
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx


Hi,

Well we are just about to start the analysis (contrast and compare and
reach consensus) phase after each us with some bias toward a particular
solution has given his or her preferred end state.

To me this kind of seems like a starting place.

a.

On 28 Apr 2010, at 12:46, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
>