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:
Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:47:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (13 lines)
On 26 Jan 2010, at 17:37, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> 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.


And this is exactly the point which I feel you are missing.  Vertical Integration is the textbook may mean this, but in the ICANN context it does not.

So please  don't be so presumptuous.  You have asserted a proposition I consider false and have claimed for it the mantle of truth without any proof.  Whereas   ICANN rules stipulate that all registries are treated equally, no mater what.

a.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2