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

["Thomas Barrett - EnCirca" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

As a follow-up,

If the result was fewer registrars, and thereby less competition and
consumer choice for .com, .net and other tld's, would this be considered a
success? 

What if the remaining 12 registrars were all based in the US?  Any problem?

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:01 PM
To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the Economists
Salop/Wright at 20:UTC


Good question, Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> The questions I have for the group are:
> 
> 1. are we limited to considering harm only to consumers?

Fundamentally, Yes. By that I mean that it is not ICANN's remit or
legitimate purpose to protect or preserve the profits of any particular
business. Its task is the public interest.

> 2. should ICANN be concerned about harm to existing or future 
> registrars?

No, if by "harm" you simply mean removing protections or artificial market
restrictions whose only purpose is to retain the economic viability of
companies that would not otherwise be competitive. 

> 3. Does ICANN want to continue to encourage new registrars to enter 
> the marketplace?  Or is it done?

ICANN should be concerned about the contestability and competitiveness of
the market, not with the number of registrars 

> 4. Is there any harm to consumers if there are a lot fewer registrars 
> than today?

Again, the issue is the degree of effective competition, not the number of
registrars. 
If we can have intensive, efficiency-producing competition with a dozen
registrars or 1200 registrars doesn't really matter, as long as the
competitive process is working efficiently.

> 5. what if there were fewer registrars than gtld's.  Is this a healthy 
> marketplace for consumers?

See answers to #3 and #4