Except we are talking about an environment where the rules mandate that there be no prejudice among the registrars.  So the exception you list as being allowable under the DEFINITION is already mandated.  The integrated provider would be disallowed based on other ICANN regulations for registrars.  Integrating a registrar with a registry would not result in exclusive sales, but would still allow for special information sharing and other advantage VI  (and other close relationships) brings.

Hence when we talk of VI we are not talking about exclusive marketing.  And I see this as a critical point:  this _prohibition of exclusivity_ is perhaps what makes the functional effect of Vertical integration, cross ownership and joint marketing similar in the ICANN context.

a.



On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:23, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 
> No false statements were made. Let me make it clearer for the members: 
> 
> With vertical integration, a consumer cannot buy .foo from any other registrar UNLESS THE INTEGRATED PROVIDER CHOOSES TO LET OTHER REGISTRARS DO SO. 
> 
> This is incontrovertible; it is the definition of VI. With VI, there is no distinction, no separation between registry and registrar, no equal access to the registry. 
> 
> So to use your example, yes, Apple can _choose_ to let other stores sell their products -- but it does not have to. If uit wants to retain a product or products exclusively for distribution in its own store, it can. 
> 
> --MM
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-
>> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:18 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] One or two PDPs?
>> 
>> On 26 Jan 2010, at 08:14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> With vertical integration, a consumer cannot buy .TLD .foo from any
>> other registrar.
>> 
>> this patently false.  Just as in in cross-maketing, other Registrars would
>> be able to sell it.
>> 
>> Just because Apple sells Apple products in Apple stores, does not mean
>> others can't sell them as well - and do.
>> 
>> this has been at the core of the false statement you have been making.
>> 
>> VI is not the same as exclusive sales.
>> 
>> a.
>