<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt
- To: "Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, "tim@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>, Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>, "vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt
- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:25:36 -0400
I don't think there is any point to concede, except for the fun of comparing
ICANNland to Candyland.
As noted before, my use of real-world examples of the presence or absence of
rules regarding vertical separation is NOT selective. It is based on an
understanding of antitrust economics. And the professional antitrust economists
ICANN has consulted with - who come from a broad spectrum of - are all telling
us the same thing. So I really don't understand the point Jeff is making. If we
can't debate these issues using real world examples we'll be stuck in Candyland
forever. So Jeff, please engage with the economic/structural arguments on the
merits and stop making sophistical points.
--MM
From: Hammock, Statton [mailto:shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
I will concede, Jeff, that you do make a fair point.
Statton
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|