Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] First stab at objectives and a definition of VI

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have to admit don't understand why the equal access part is in the proposed 
definition. If a registry is vertically integrated with a registrar, it can 
still be required to provide full and equal access to its TLD to all accredited 
registrars. For me, any VI definition need only describe the relationship 
between the integrated parties, not any theoretical relationship between them 
and other parties which may be governed by other circumstances (such as an 
ICANN contract for example).

Avri, Milton, as you say you have already discussed the subject at some length, 
perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the equal access part was deemed 
necessary.

Thanks,

Stéphane

Le 4 févr. 2010 à 21:03, Milton L Mueller a écrit :

> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> 
>>> So just to make sure I got this right, the definition that is being
>> proposed at this stage is the following?
>>> 
>>> Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there
>> is no separation between the registry operator and the registrar; they are
>> owned and operated by the same company and the domain name supplier is not
>> required to provide access to independent firms to sell names under its
>> TLD.
> 
> Yes, that's a perfectly fine definition. But the good news is that Avri's 
> proposed definition really has very few, if any, substantive differences from 
> a correct one:
> 
>> Vertical integration is defined as a business structure in which there is
>> no separation between the registry operator and the registrar in relation
>> to a particular gTLD; they are either owned and operated by the same
>> company or have another contractual affiliation that covers the specific
>> gTLD, and the domain name supplier is not required to provide full and
>> equal access to independent firms to sell names under its TLD.
> 
> Other than the phrase " or have another contractual affiliation that covers 
> the specific gTLD", which is a bit vague, I have no problem with this 
> definition. This is in fact not what our difference was within NCUC. It is 
> the equal access issue that didn't seem to be understood at the time, but 
> this definition includes that. 
> 
> I still think it wise to include the economic reference and the official 
> definition used therein, so that policy experts and real economists who 
> observe our work at least know we did our homework. I do not consider 
> Wikipedia to be an authoritative source on anything, and typically no subject 
> matter expert does.
> 
> --MM
> 
>