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

[Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>]

Milton's summary is the correct one.

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


On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx> 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
>
>