Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

To Mikey's question:

Another thing we did in the MaPO group, when we wondered what the GAC meant, we 
asked.

a.

On 27 Sep 2010, at 09:40, Richard Tindal wrote:

> 
> I agree with Eric.
> 
> Its unclear to me precisely what the GAC meant.  I'm leaning towards the 
> interpretation that its about exceptions.
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Warning. Not the product of a long and considered thinkum.
>> 
>> What is "wrong" with ...
>> 
>> 0% (Nairobi): It does not match the GAC recommendation that an exception 
>> exist for registries operated by and for communities located in developing 
>> economies.
>> 
>> 3% (Staff): Ditto.
>> 
>> RACK+: There's the no-exception version, and the "++" version that was the 
>> subject of discussion involving myself and others, which had exception for 
>> communities. The "+" version shares the defect above. The "++" version has 
>> the defect that the community exception did not specifically promote 
>> communities located in developing economies or under-served scripts.
>> 
>> JN2: It has exceptions for communities, as well as exceptions for "single 
>> registrant", and for "orphan". The defect(s) are arguably that the scope of 
>> the exception promotes brands and fail(ing) standard applications more than 
>> communities located in developing economies or under-served scripts, _and_, 
>> after 18 months, the per-registry test of separation as a market protection 
>> policy.
>> 
>> Free Trade: It does not match the GAC recommendation that separation is the 
>> appropriate tool for market protection, and shares the first defect of JN2.
>> 
>> CAM: Ditto. The utility of my commenting on anything from 
>> Meuller/Palage/Doria is less than zero.
>> 
>> 
>> I suppose a key issue is how one reads the GAC recommendation.
>> 
>> Are the references to market power informative to the recommendation that 
>> registries operated by and for communities in developing economies be 
>> allowed to operate the registrar function, OR are they free standing, and 
>> applicable to any registry lacking market power?
>> 
>> Are the references to national competition authorities illustrative of the 
>> issues to consider when evaluating a request for vertical integration, or 
>> are they recommendations to delegations of authority from the Board to some 
>> national competition authorities?
>> 
>> Then there's the hoary old standard, what is meant in this document by 
>> "market power"? Is it in the CNOBI++ market, whether registry or registrar 
>> function is considered, or is it in each .NEWDOT market, or is it across all 
>> similar .NEWDOT instances?
>> 
>> See you at call-time.
>> Eric
>