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

[Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello

To revisit the Free Trade Proposal, the essential suggestion is that ICANN
as a Names and Numbers 'SuperRegistry' (if it is a term that approximately
denotes the role of ICANN), ought not to restrain the domain business firms
by dictating any form of compartmentalization of  the Domain Name industry.

This discussion on Vertical Integration is something that exceeds the role
of ICANN. But the underlying spirit of the mandate to this working group is
to pay attention to the unfair practices assumed to result from concentrated
business power of the over-sized domain businesses, be it a Registry,
Registrar or a Service Provider. Any such unfair practices or 'harms' may or
may not actually be related to the size of a domain business or to the way
it has expanded to include the vertical sectors.

The spirit of the Free Trade Proposal is to dismiss the assumptions 1)
Unfair practices are caused by large Domain business firms and 2) Domain
Industry would suddenly become fair to all concerned in a vertically
separated or restrained environment.

If these assumptions are dismissed, we are left with the status quo. Why
don't we examine, comprehensively examine, what is wrong, without the
preconceived notion that there ought to be compartmentalization and
restraints?

One suggestion is to go to the Board with the recommendation that ICANN need
not look into the growth and expansion patterns of the domain business
firms, but instead focus on harmful practices in the Names and Numbers
space. This working group may seek to redefine its commission as a group to
comprehensively examine 'harmful practices in the Names and Numbers space'
unattended /caused by ICANN, Registries, Registrars and Registrants.

Sivasubramanian M




Sivasubramanian M
http://turiya.co.in

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




On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Tim,
>
> I agree that defining who has market power is a lengthy exercise that
> cannot be established in a few days.
> My point was to clarify what they meant by market power, so a definition of
> what is market power.
>
> Jeff
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: Tim Ruiz
> *To*: Jeff Eckhaus
> *Cc*: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent*: Mon Sep 27 07:09:03 2010
> *Subject*: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
>
> 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.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
>