Jim Dixon wrote:
<snip>
>
> > In this instance the 'we' clearly refers to NetNames.
> > Also, I clearly state that 'restrictive ccTLD policies are
> > anti-competitive'. Which implies that we believe that
> non-restrictive
> > policies are not anti-competitive. Which would lead you to
> the conclusion
> > that I believe Nominet to be non-restrictive.
>
> While there might be a certain logic to what you say, I think that it
> is exceedingly unlikely that anyone would come to this conclusion
> after reading what you wrote.
>
I came to this conclusion, but that may be influenced by the fact that I
know who Ivan is.
> <snip>..... And unfortunately, given the small size of the
> registries
> concerned, it is unlikely that DG IV is likely to be able to
> afford the
> investment necessary to take action.
>
> NSI is of course a different proposition. Its market in Europe is
> relatively large and it is a foreign commercial company operating a
> monopoly within the European Union. In short, it's an easy target.
>
I agree with all the reasonment, but less with the conclusion.
It is not an easy target, it is the priority target.
As you have described, the problem with NSI is:
- qualitatively more important, because it refers to a foreign country
- quantitatively more important, because of the size of the market
Therefore, this was not an easy target, but the most logical solution.
Moreover, the fact that action is being taken in respect to NSI opens the
door for future action in respect to other European entities. If they never
start addressing the "big" problem, how could you expect DG IV to address
the "smaller" problem?
Regards
Roberto
