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

[Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Milton.  Having read it a third time (is it intentionally opaque?) I'm 
pretty comfortable the current AG is consistent
with its recommendations.    It makes clear that most new TLDs are unlikely to 
have market power.

R


On Jun 18, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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
>>> 
>