[gnso-vi-feb10] RE: ISPCP COMMENTS ON VI

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I was happy to see that this statement took a reasonable stance and supported 
the idea of exceptions to the separation requirements in the case of SR, 
"orphans" and community TLDs. I also thought it was nice that it deferred 
taking a position on how exceptions should be made, indicating a willingness to 
work that out through the WG process.

I have one question about a part of the ISPCP statement, and hope someone from 
that group can answer it.

The closing paragraph of the statement says that "...the ISPCP Constituency is 
in favour of Full Structural Separation of Registries and Registrars as an 
overall policy..."

My question is this: does a registry that owns a separate, ICANN-accredited 
registrar that distributes its own TLD, but nevertheless offers equivalent 
access to all other accredited registrars, count as "structural separation" or 
not? The reason this is an important question is that most IO economists I know 
would consider that arrangement to be structural separation (separate business 
entities, separate contracts with ICANN, equal access requirements). But I 
think some people here might not.

--MM

*IO = industrial organization btw

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 6:23 PM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: ISPCP COMMENTS ON VI

ISPCP COMMENTS ON VERTICAL INTEGRATION


Forwarded From: Anthony Harris


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org