ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tierney letter to Strickland, via Dengate-Thrush

  • To: "ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tierney letter to Strickland, via Dengate-Thrush
  • From: Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 02:45:27 -0400

That's actually not a correct summary. The DoJ Antitrust Division opinion was 
that cross ownership should not be allowed without first a finding that the 
registry in question does not have, and is unlikely to get, market power. If no 
market power is found, then CO for CNOBI would be fine. 

Some of you may recall that this is precisely what the MMA proposal called for. 

Eric, as I recall, was not so pleased with the MMA proposal.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:24 PM
> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tierney letter to Strickland, via Dengate-
> Thrush
> Colleagues,
> I'll keep this short. The DoJ has responded to the DoC's letter on
> competition policy issues arising from ICANN's removal of all cross
> ownership restrictions on contracted parties.
> The DoJ guidance is first, that removing cross ownership restrictions on
> the CNOBI set of registries should be recinded, as this is likely to
> result in higher prices, with .name and .pro ignored, though both are
> price-capped, and second, that .aero, .coop, .museum, ... the sTLDs,
> should presumptively be allowed to exercise cross ownership, absent
> market power.
> I'm very pleased with this outcome.
> Eric

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy