One or two PDPs?

[Milton L Mueller]

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> assume a transliteration of .com into an IDN script by the incumbent.
> still no market power?

In other words, you are talking about VeriSign? 

Your supposed counter example makes my case perfectly. It shows that allowing JM/CO while retaining equal access and contractual, technical and functional separation of Rys and Rrs keeps the policy status quo in place.

FIRST, VeriSign will be price-capped. 

SECOND, if VeriSign takes advantage of JM/CO allowances to buy a registrar that sells the new IDN .com it must still offer equal access to all other registrars. So VeriSign gains no market power whatsoever over the REGISTRAR market by virtue of the JM/CO arrangement. 

THIRD, VeriSign's dominance of the market for ASCII .com may give it special market power over this IDN market. But that would happen REGARDLESS of whether we allow JM/CO or not. In other words, companies who buy VeriSign's IDN version of .com will feel compelled to do so regardless of whether VeriSign owns a registrar and engages in joint marketing. 

> and as i pointed out previous, just because something is Vertically
> integrated does not preclude others from selling it, they are still
> constrained by the requirement to treat all registrars equally - even if
> one of those with a RAA is VI'ed into the company.

Here you reveal that you do not really understand the issue very well, again. Vertical integration means that the registry is NOT constrained by the requirement to treat all registrars equally. That is precisely why some companies want to be vertically integrated. That is why VI is such a big policy change. What you are talking about above is JM/CO, not VI.

I hope you understand the issue better now.

--MM

> > Another point you seem to have lost sight of while getting confused
> about the term vertical integration: when we talk about JM/CO in the DAG,
> we are talking about NEW gTLDs. New gTLDs have no market power, and indeed
> have huge handicaps relative to incumbent TLDs. To say that their ability
> to enter the market should wait 3 years while we figure out whether to
> allow vertical integration and carve out a regulatory distinction between
> private and public TLDs is absurd, frankly. It just makes no sense.
> 
> in my opinion this is complete  FUD.
> 
> > It seems to me that Avri is the only person who refuses to accept this
> fact, whereas several in the constituency have expressed support for
> separate proceedings. I think our Council reps need to acknowledge this
> and move on accordingly.
> 
> I believe this is a false statement and requires more careful reading of
> the email we have received.  Also a sample of 4 is not all that
> statistically significant.
> 
> Finally, I think that the NCSG/NCUC has never taken a position on
> Councilors being bound by a few voices on the list, but rather are
> chosen/elected for their ability to listen to the discussion and make up
> their own minds.  That is why we have elections: they listen and interact,
> they make their decisions based on what they think is best for Non
> Commercial interests ,and we vote them in or out depending on our
> judgement of how well they have done that.  Certainly the 3 council
> members chosen by the Board are not bound by NCUC discussions - though of
> course one would expect them to listen and make up their minds based on
> what they had heard.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ps. my dear friend Milton,  your frequent use of  the word 'obviously' in
> your email is downright oppressive.  those who disagree with you don't see
> the obvious? come on! that is called intellectual bullying.