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

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Hi Milton,

I do not agree in some of the points within the GAC comments, I was just 
trying to summarize the main point of what I think some GAC members 
indicated to me this position would mean:
VS as a general principle, but with enough exceptions to allow smaller 
TLDs some flexibility in their setup. Essentially, the JN2 proposal was 
viewed as a good example. Not sure about their view on "not in your own 
TLD though".
Best,

Volker

> Again, your problem with understanding the application of the term 
> "market power" is the root of the problem, just as it was with Tim.
> To take up the GAC statement, governments "generally support 
> restrictions on VI and CO" to promote competition when VI and CO are 
> used by entities with monopolies or market power in one segment of the 
> market to extend it to another. If that market power or monopoly power 
> is absent, generally there is no need to restrict VI and CO. There is 
> no contradiction here.
> This principle does not just apply to small, community TLDs -- indeed, 
> in the scientific literature on competition law, economics and policy 
> the "community" concept does not exist, and is never an excuse for 
> applying or not applying economic restrictions. (if monopoly power is 
> exercised by a "community" it is still just as harmful). Rather, the 
> GAC statement suggests -- as does any economically-informed policy -- 
> that you apply vertical separation only when it is a tool against the 
> exercise of power and otherwise you don't need to.
> *From:* owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Volker Greimann
> *Sent:* Monday, September 27, 2010 1:26 PM
> *To:* Richard Tindal
> *Cc:* Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
>
> Not sure what the GAC position in general is, but the GAC members I 
> talked to shared that view:
> in general VS is a good idea, but in some exceptions it would not make 
> sense, i.e. communities of a limited size of domain registrations and 
> SRSUs. In those scenarios they supported exceptions from VS.
> Volker
>
> It's hard to determine the specific position advocated by GAC.
>
> When you read specific sentences in isolation they seem to support 
> certain positions.   But when the thing is read in totality
> it can be contradictory.    For example,  this in the 2nd para -- 
> "/Governments generally support restrictions on vertical integration /
> /and cross- ownership as important devices for promoting competition, 
> preventing market dominance and averting market distortions". /
> Overall (to me)  they seem to me to be advocating exceptions only for 
> smaller, Community TLDs.  If they had meant full integration
> except with market power, in any situation,  it would have been an 
> easy thing for them to say.
> RT
>
> On Sep 27, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Jeff Eckhaus wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 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 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> <owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
> <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.

--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.key-systems.net/facebook
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.