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

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

The most pointed part of the letter pertains exclusively to TLDs that are under 
price caps, since there are certain kinds of gaming/discrimination that 
economic theory suggests can take place when an established gTLD moves into the 
registrar business under price capping.  

Yes, Richard, on new entities proposing new TLDs, the letter is confusing. 
First, because they will not be under price caps; second, because as Richard 
suggests it is hard to conceive of a new TLD having market power, except 
perhaps when it is owned by a large incumbent with market power. To be honest 
(although this is not a very flattering interpretation) I got the impression 
that Tierney of DoJ had marching orders to raise issues designed to delay the 
program even when the substance of their objections was not that serious.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tindal [mailto:richardtindal@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:59 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx; Eric Brunner-Williams
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tierney letter to Strickland, via Dengate-
> Thrush
> 
> I read it the same way.    In the context of new TLDs the DoJ
> recommendation is perplexing.
> 
> What they seem to be saying is that a pre-delegation decision must also
> be made whether or not a new TLD could have
> market power (the last para in particular applies).      Milton -  Do
> you read it the same way?
> 
> If so, I don't know how anyone would pre-determine the likelihood of
> this (esp. if the applicant is a new entity).
> 
> Welcome thoughts from others.
> 
> RT
> 
> PS.   the band is NOT getting back together
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 18, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> >