Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First draft - harms caused by VI/CO

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

( My position that there shouldn't be any rules related to cross ownership
remains unchanged and is in-fact reinforced. But I am pointing out a
possible fallacy in the following argument to argue that most harms occur
irrespective of vertical integration / separation )

Harms Caused by Vertical Separation and limits on cross-ownership.



   1.

   Harms to consumers

    1.

      Increased pricing to consumers and prevention of price reductions.



    1.

         A vertically-integrated registry/registrar could pass on lower
         prices to consumers. Vertical separation rules will therefore increase
         prices to consumers.

         2.

         A Chinese-Wall arrangement will mean duplicate staffing, rent, etc.
         costs for a “separated” registry-registrar, resulting in higher prices.

         3.

         Registries and registrars will be prevented from merging, thereby
         preventing marketplace efficiencies and keeping prices
artificially high for
         consumers.



It can also be argued that a vertically integrated entity could develop
monopolistic tendencies and may seek to maximize its profits, rather than
pass on cost-savings to consumers. Better economies of scale may be
achieved, better market place efficiencies may be achieved, but the business
entity may retain them all within.

Most harms occur irrespective of the vertical integration / separation
framework. Because of this reason, harms need to be examined as harms *per
se*.


Sivasubramanian M
http://turiya.co.in

http://www.isocmadras.com
facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh
LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6
Twitter: http://is.gd/x8V <http://is.gd/x8Vz>



On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Antony Van Couvering <
avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Here is a first draft of some harms that will be caused by VI/CO
> restrictions.  Certainly there are significant harms caused by restrictions,
> in forceful counterpoint to the harms that might come from NOT having
> restrictions.
>
> Jeff Eckhaus has agreed to fold this into the master list as Part B.
>
> This  is intended as a starting point.   Please chime in if I missed
> something.
>
> Antony
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>