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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Even though I disagree with Eric that the RACK proposal  comes close to
> the GAC suggestion since it shuts out Registrars except for allowing
> for a nominal minority investment  , I think he has a point in looking
> at the different proposals and analyzing  how they fit into the GAC
> model.

Jeff, I don't think the GAC position has any more legitimacy than ours, indeed 
much less so in terms of the time put into it and level of expertise of the 
participants. GAC doesn't have a "model," really. GAC's main point is that 
exceptions to separation should hinge on market power, and that we ought to 
avail ourselves of the expertise of national antitrust authorities, a position 
which corresponds almost exactly to what CAM3 supporters have been saying, and 
is also similar to what Salop and Wright said. However, CAM did not come close 
to having consensus in this group, and there are interested parties in this 
group who regularly make clear the fact that they don’t like what Salop and 
Wright (or anyone else with expertise in competition law and economics) says. 
Therefore, I don’t see why we should analyze how the different proposals fit 
into the GAC model, how would that be different from analyzing how RACK or JN2 
differs from CAM?

I think the only way forward is to agree on a very general statement about when 
and how exceptions to vertical separation would be acceptable. But if you are 
convinced more progress than that is possible in a few days, more power to you.