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

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim. Another new deadline won't change our reality. We  
have a hung jury.  It's up to the Board to make a decision.
Thanks

Jon Nevett



On Sep 27, 2010, at 10:09 AM, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> What Salop and Wright did was speculate. Defining market power, or  
> even
> worse, future market power, in an international environment would take
> more than a few days, likely at least months if not years. In  
> addition,
> extensive outside expertise would need to be consulted.
>
> Given where we were when the interim report was published, I doubt
> highly that this group will find consensus by the 8th of October. We
> should face reality and relabel the revised interim report as final  
> and
> let the Board do what it will do.
>
> Tim
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical  
> Integration
> > From: Jeff Eckhaus
> > Date: Mon, September 27, 2010 8:57 am
> > To: "'avri@xxxxxxx'" , "'Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'"
> >
> >
> > 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
> > To: 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.