ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[gnso-vi-feb10]


<<< 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 >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy