Vertical integration blows up again: EC and registries lay into ICANN
The crucial issue of market separation between those that run an Internet registry and those that sell domains underneath it has risen its ugly head again, with both the European Commission and existing Internet registries sending critical letters to ICANN asking for resolution on the issue.
The EC letter responds to a letter sent from ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom back in October that purported to outline the full reasons why the ICANN Board unexpectedly decided to lift all "vertical integration" restrictions late in 2010.
The EC was not impressed by Beckstrom's letter, noting that it "does not contain any information going beyond the already publicly available information" and so it remains of the view that it is still unable "to properly assess the competitive impact of a full removal of vertical separation".
- Commission
- ICANN
- Internet governance
- Studies & Reports
- Top-Level Domains (generic)
- Transparency & Accountability
- Regulation
- Public policy
- Second Level Domains
- New gTLD process
- Domain name
- Domain name system
- Generic top-level domain
- ICANN
- Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
- Internet governance
- Internet in the United States
- Peter Dengate Thrush
- RegisterFly
- Rod Beckstrom
- Site Finder
- Social Issues
- Technology
- Peter Dengate Thrush
- Rod Beckstrom
- Social Issues
- Technology
- ICANN
- CEO
- chair
LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
Comments
"Laying in"?
Once again it seems that you are sensationalising the issue. The letter from the EC could hardly be characterised as "laying in" to ICANN. rather they are simply seeking further details and clarification in rode that they can make an assessment of the issue.
A bit more objective journalism and rather less bluster might make this site a useful resource rather than the anti-ICANN gossip sheet it seems to be.
Misleading
Unless you are one of our members and you logged in to read the article, and then logged out in order to post this comment, you will have not read more than the first three paragraphs of this article.
Those three paragraphs are objectively accurate, which means that you have based your rather aggressive comment solely on the headline, ignored the content that appears under it, and without having read any of the rest of the (lengthy) article.
You will forgive us then it is we argue it is in fact you that is guilty of sensationalization.