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

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

I understand it from a US perspective, but not internationally. From remarks 
I've seen on previous posts it's clear to me very few if any others in this 
group completely understand it either way.

Regarding your other non-sensical remark, it's clear you are mixing up 
consensus with compromise at any cost. Typical.

Tim


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:26:28 
To: 'Tim Ruiz'<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>; roberto@xxxxxxxxx<roberto@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mike@xxxxxxxxxx>; 
Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

Tim,
I am having trouble understanding your attacks on the market power concept. 
Your lack of knowledge about how the concept is applied and defined does not 
mean that it cannot be defined or has not been defined. There is no need for 
this group to come up with a definition.

Re SRSU, so once again, RACK supporters hold up consensus in an attempt to 
maintain the status quo.  Big surprise.

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 1:34 PM
To: roberto@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: mike@xxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration

As I said before, you are putting the cart before the horse regarding
the market power concept. It is meaningless and useless until it has
been defined. It is also a concept used in various ways by existing
competition authorities in various jurisdictions throughout the world.
So it would be presumptious, and impossible, for this group to try and
use or define that here.

i also do not agree with the SRSU. As has been pointed out before by
more than just myself, different groups and individuals among us have
different views about what that means. So to imply there is any kind of
consensus regarding it is not true. For example, I believe that the RACK
supporters would need to have it clearly defined before saying whether
it should be pursued at all.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
> From: "Roberto Gaetano"
> Date: Mon, September 27, 2010 11:38 am
> To: "'Mike O'Connor'" , "'vertical integration
> wg'"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Let me add something to what my fellow co-chair has
> proposed.
>
> Let's forget about the different proposals - there's no way we
> can get anything close to a consensus on any of them. I appreciate the effort 
> by
> some to propose something that is not their own proposal in an effort to get
> consensus, but I doubt it would work.
>
> As noted by some, we are not talking principles, but real
> money, and that makes consensus more difficult.
> Right. So why don't we leave the details down, and concentrate
> on some principles instead?
> The "harms" list that I have proposed seem not to have flown.
> So let's try something else.
>
> Can we have consensus on the fact that we can
> have exceptions to the general vertical separation rule (the Nairobi
> baseline)?
> Maybe we do not need to be 100% specific on what the
> exceptions are, for the time being. We can mention SRSU as an example, and say
> that we can investigate further (meaning after October 8) if we have mandate 
> to
> continue.
>
> Can we discuss whether we think that the rules that will apply
> in the first round could be changed later? In any case, one sticky point is
> consistency of contracts, and not to put everybody on a level field. The issue
> is that rules that apply for one round, if changed later, should retrofit to 
> the
> previous applicants. This can be done if provisions are made in contracts. 
> Just
> an idea, thrown at those who are more familiar with registry and registrar
> contracts.
>
> We can surely make a statement related to "predominant market
> power" without defining clearly what the market power is, leaving the 
> definition
> for later, or for an expert panel. The point is that if we agree that certain
> rules have been designed to limit the "predominant market power" by one
> incumbent, we can still use this concept and make a consensus statement on the
> principle, leaving the formal definition of what a predominant power would be 
> to
> later or other people.
>
> I agree with Mikey that we must stress the point of
> compliance. There is no point in proposing rules if nobody will enforce
> them.
>
> Looking forward to a lively discussion
> shortly.
>
> Roberto
>
>
>
>
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike
> O'Connor
> Sent: Monday, 27 September 2010 17:51
> To:
> vertical integration wg
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board
> resolution on Vertical Integration
>
>
>
> just checking...
>
>
> here's a starter-kit of bullet points that we might be able to put into a
> consensus statement;
>
>
>
> -- Certain new gTLDs likely to be applied for in the first round may be
> unnecessarily impacted by restrictions on cross-ownership or
> control between registrar and registry.
>
>
> -- There is need for a process that would allow applicants to request
> exceptions and have them considered on a case-by-case basis.
>
>
> -- The concept of Single Registrant, Single User TLDs should be
> explored further.
>
>
> -- There will exist need for enhanced compliance efforts and the need
> for a detailed compliance plan in relation to the new gTLD program
> in general.
>
>
>
> that's an ever-so-slightly edited version of the principles list...
>
>
> i think there are two areas of consensus -- 1) the need for exceptions
> and 2) the importance of capable compliance.
>
>
> mikey
>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone
> 651-647-6109
> fax   866-280-2356
> web  http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for
> public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)
>
>
>
>
>