ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Board resolution on Vertical Integration
  • From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:05:53 -0500

Can I tell you I'm disinclined to believe that the GAC has a lock on a
prescriptive solution here?

The fundamental thing is that certain assumptions made by the existing VI
orthodoxy are merely modest ruminations, if that.

I will continue to hold that any 'a priori' prescription that aims to
restrict the domain name market to a specific business model on the basis of
perceived harm is wrong-headed.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 26 Sep 2010, at 21:10, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > -- the proposals -- we're about evenly divided in thirds between JN2,
> Free Trade and RACK+, is there a way to consolidate them into something that
> can be described as rough consensus?
> We might also want to think about this in light of what the GAC said in
> their letter to the Board as quoted by Eric:
> > Begin quote:
> >
> > Registry-registrar separation
> >
> > The GAC notes the significant work being done within the ICANN community
> to resolve the difficult issue of registry-registrar separation. The GAC
> looks forward to further discussion of this important issue.
> >
> > The GAC notes that CANN has incorporated strict rules in version 4 of the
> DAG under which registrars are not able to provide registry services or to
> operate a new gTLD. Governments generally support restrictions on vertical
> integration and cross-ownership as important devices for promoting
> competition, 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.
> >
> > However, the GAC also recognises that if market power is not an issue,
> the ability of registrars with valuable technical, commercial and relevant
> local expertise and experience to enter the domain names market could likely
> lead to benefits in terms of enhancing competition and promoting innovation.
> >
> > An important additional benefit which the GAC expects would flow from
> such an exemption would be that community-based TLD applicants would be able
> to cast their net more widely in securing partners with the necessary
> expertise and experience in the local market to undertake what would be
> relatively small scale registry functions.
> >
> > The GAC therefore urges ICANN to resolve the current debate about
> registry-registrar separation with a solution that fosters competition and
> innovation in the DNS market by allowing exemptions, subject to some form of
> regulatory probity that ensures a
> > level playing field, for certain registrars as potentially valuable
> newcomers to the registry market. ICANN may find it useful to consider the
> experience of competition regulators around the world in addressing this
> issue.
> >
> > End quote.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy