Vaikojimmerrs arise!

[Rosemary Sinclair]

Hi all

>From a similar discussion in another sector...

Cheers

Rosemary



please see John Kay's article in today's FT where he also talks about functional separation in relation to financial services: 
 
  
 
"We made a mistake in the closing decades of the 20th century. We removed restrictions that had imposed functional separation on financial institutions. This led to businesses riddled with conflicts of interest and culture, controlled by warring groups of their own senior employees. The scale of resources such businesses commanded enabled them to wield influence to create a - for them - virtuous circle of growing economic and political power. That mistake will not be easily remedied, and that is why I view the new decade with great apprehension. In the name of free markets, we created a monster that threatens to destroy the very free markets we extol.."




Rosemary Sinclair
Managing Director, ATUG
Chairman, INTUG
T: +61 2 94958901  F: +61 2 94193889
M: +61 413734490 
Email: rosemary.sinclair at atug.org.au
Skype: rasinclair
 
Please visit the ATUG website for Updates and Information www.atug.com.au 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
Sent: Sunday, 10 January 2010 9:45 PM
To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Vaikojimmerrs arise!

More on the VI/CO/JM/RR (vertical integration, cross ownership, joint marketing, registry-registrar - pronounced "VaikoJimErr") discussion: 

Responding to Bill:

> -----Original Message-----

> So if what's currently proposed by staff is not true VI and does not
> require a PDP, which is what the Council's considering, which are the
> issues regarding registry-registrar separation that are not merely a
> change in the enforcement mechanisms and do require a PDP?  

Important question. A PDP needs to take up several questions.

First and foremost, should we in the future allow full and complete vertical integration of the registry and registrar businesses for non-dominant gTLD suppliers? 

Second, even if we don't permit full-fledged VI, is it appropriate to permit it in narrower contexts, such as the private-label gTLD (e.g., .ibm or .cisco)? The CRAI Report has a good discussion of this issue, and so does the Michael Palage powerpoint from the October 19 online meeting hosted by ICANN. 

Third, but as an extension to the second, if we do institute a regulatory distinction between "private" and "public" gTLD operators, then ICANN's pricing model needs to be reviewed and possibly revised. Why should a private TLD operator pay ICANN a per-registration fee for purely organizational, noncommercial registrations for which it does not collect revenue? 

I know Bill and Rosemary will get this, but others may need more elaboration which I can't give now: think back to the emergence of a distinction between private and public switched telecom network operators - and how important that distinction became to the organization of the industry. 

There are probably a few other issues related to VI that could be considered in a PDP, but the three above are pretty weighty. So I think of a PDP as a long-term review of the future of registry-registrar vertical separation regime: what would happen if we remove it, how do we deal with the cases that don't seem to fit in it, how do we draw lines if we start making exceptions to it, what are the long term implications for ICANN'sregulatory model, etc. 

--MM