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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am inclined to agree with Tim on this, but I don't want to see the
issue being re-re-re-re-hashed as an opportunity for new TLD haters to
glom onto to perpetuate delay.

-Jothan

Jothan Frakes
+1.206-355-0230 tel
+1.206-201-6881 fax



On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>