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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Or we could ask Salop/Wright since the GAC specifically references them:

preventing market dominance and averting market distortions. The GAC notes in 
this regard the Salop
> and Wright report and recognizes that vertical separation may be warranted 
> where a market participant wields, or may in the future wield, market power

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon Sep 27 06:46:00 2010
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration


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
>



Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.