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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> In theory, from day one there should have been multiple TLDs by
> multiple TLD providers.

But there wasn't. So Economic theory, if that is the "theory" you are talking 
about, _does_ tell you useful things about what kind of consequences you can 
expect when you artificially restrict the number of TLDs, as we have done for 
years.

> In theory, from day 1, we should never have a
> an artificial distinction between registries and registrars.

Wrong. Economic analysis often concludes that if one element of a two-stage 
production process is monopolized and another element is potentially 
competitive, you might try to separate the two. 

> In theory today we should have no distinction between registries, registrars 
> and
> resellers.

The point, however, is that economic theory gives you some basis for analyzing 
the actual consequences of having such distinctions.  

> In theory, from an economic standpoint, there should be no
> equal access requirements.

Utterly false. If a pair of TLDs (.com, .net) constitutes 80% of the market and 
are both controlled by a single company, then from an economic standpoint it 
makes a great deal of sense to have equal access requirements - to .com and 
.net. There are precedents in many areas, local-long distance telecom after 
1982 being an example. The theory also tells you that you may not need the same 
access requirements to a nondominant, new TLD as you do for a dominant, 
long-established one. 

> In theory, Registries should be able to use...In theory....

etc, etc. By making these comments I presume you think you are somehow 
discrediting " "economic analysis" or "theory." You are only revealing your 
ignorance of both.