RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name mkt

["Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The point I conceded, is that "ICANNland" does have a set of forces,
factors, and features that, in combination, are unique to it but when
parsed out we can find good analogies to these factors in different
markets that exist today. Thinking outside ICANNland is what I encourage
us to do, to the extent that its helpful to raise us out of the weeds
and give us a better perspective from which to consider the issues. 

 

Statton 

 

 Statton Hammock 
 Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs 

 
http://www.networksolutionsretail.com/signature/netsollogo09.gif<http://
www.networksolutionsretail.com/signature/netsollogo09.gif> 

P 703-668-5515  M 703-624-5031 www.networksolutions.com

 

 

From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 11:26 AM
To: Hammock, Statton; Neuman, Jeff; tim@xxxxxxxxxxx;
owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Jothan Frakes; vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] vertical relationships in the domain name
mkt

 

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