NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:29:08 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (11 lines)
On 25 Jan 2010, at 16:54, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> A correction: there is no vertical integration of existing TLDs. Existing TLDs, even when they employ JM/CO, are not vertically integrated. 

Though this is academically speaking true, what remains to be analyzed is whether the joint marketing/co-ownership behave functionally in pretty much the same way as vertical integration and thus have similar if not the same effect.

With reference to my  so called 'fulminations' to my dear friend Milton, i did not say that the GNSO must review and approve the DAG.  If it were only so.!  the whole community gets to do that and the GNSO can send recommendations to the Board.  Also if the issue gets hot enough we could have another one of the those scenarios where the Board looks at the topic and instructs the GNSO Council to get off its duff and give an opinion within the next 60 days like it has before.


a.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2