RE: [wg-c] Competition policy and gTLDs

[john.c.lewis@bt.com]

Time to catch up - I'm afraid I've been away on business and latterly on
vacation.

Thank you Milton for you remarks; sorry you couldn't agree.

I agree with the concept of elasticity but I suggest that we need to
distinguish between competition for a given primary resource versus that for
a differentiated product and also the distribution channels for that product
(and its competitors) - I can't buy a Subaru Legacy made by Ford, but I can
buy a Subaru Legacy from a range of car dealers.

In this case I see the gTLD as the primary resource which offers particular
added value according to its designation; I would not go to .shop for legal
advice whereas I might expect .law to be the primary source for legal
advice. That would not diminish the significance of a citizens' advice
bureau at .co.uk but would narrow the search activity, which surely is a
primary objective of intuitive domain name structures ?

I suggest that we also need to consider the ergonomics of domain name
structures rather than just the market dynamics and regulatory controls.

Regards

John C Lewis
Manager - International Organisations Europe
BT delegate ETNO Executive Board
BT delegate EURODATA Foundation Board
Tel: +44 (0) 1442 295258 Mob: +44 (0) 802 218271
Fax: +44 (0) 1442 295861

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Milton Mueller [SMTP:mueller@syr.edu]
> Sent:	21 July 1999 18:15
> To:	wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject:	[wg-c] Competition policy and gTLDs
> 
> I'm creating a new thread in response to John Lewis's message.
> 
> john.c.lewis@bt.com wrote:
> 
> > 1) Any generic TLD which is reserved to a single
> > registrar/registry is a de
> > facto monopoly and will not satisfy competition law in some
> > parts of the
> > world. Exclusive commercial registries may be an option but
> > perhaps not an
> > advisable one, so lets not pretend they are.
> 
> I do not agree. However, this is the sort of discussion we ought
> to be having.
> 
> There is cross-elasticity of demand between gTLDs, which means
> that end users view them as competitive substitutes for each
> other. There is even provable cross-elasticity between ccTLDs
> and gTLDs; which is why, for example, highly restrictive ccTLDs
> like .FR have high rates of registration in the gTLD dot com.
> 
> Competition policy regulators do not base their determinations
> of monopoly on flat, unsubtantiated claims such as the one
> above. They attempt to determine the level of cross-elasticity
> of demand to determine what goods or services compete with each
> other. It is a measurable variable.
> 
> As long as the name is different, no gTLD is a *perfect*
> substitute for another, but no one attempts to adhere to the
> ideal of perfect competition. A Toyota Camry is not a perfect
> substitute for a Subaru Legacy or a Ford Taurus. The products
> are differentiated. But there is a great deal of competition
> among those product lines. The level of cross-elasticity
> diminishes as the products become more different, e.g., in some
> sense a used 1978 Honda Civic competes in the car market with a
> new Lexus, but few consumers would be in the market for both.
> 
> The same is true of gTLDs. As long as the market is open, there
> will be competition across gTLD registries. Registering under
> .zone would be a competitive alternative to registering under
> .web, for example. The proposed .shop would have a highly
> competitive alternative to many, many registrants currently
> under .com. Even open ccTLDs like .NU and .CC are actively
> marketing themselves as alternatives to dot com.
> 
> Obviously, considerations of demand cross-elasticity ought to
> play a role in the selection of names. Which is another reason
> why more is better.
> 
> Of couse, introducing competition at the registrar level does
> not eliminate any monopoly power the registry might have.
> 
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Milton Mueller [SMTP:mueller@syr.edu]
> > > Sent: 20 July 1999 16:48
> > > To:   Javier SOLA
> > > Cc:   wg-c@dnso.org
> > > Subject:      Re: [wg-c] There is no "consensus"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Javier SOLA wrote:
> > >
> > > > At 17:01 19/07/99 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Under the proprietary model, if I register "milton.web"
> > the registry
> > > will
> > > > >most likely be the same corporation as the registrar.
> > > >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
> syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
>