Colleagues, I've not read the EC paper and don't plan to until after the 1st of October. I expect it will keep. I agree with John about regulatory capture. However, I know that many who are engaged in policy advocacy, including Verisign among other contracted parties, reject "regulatory capture" as a possible description, as they do not accept that "regulation" is an accurate description. The former, for a variety of reasons, including a lack of familiarity with federal (United States) administrative law, as well as a preference for some other legal framework, and the latter, possessing an abundance of familiarity with US administrative law, for reasons specific to agency capture and regulated party benefit, insist that "regulation" is not practiced. I don't plan to read Professor Meuller's paper. We've known each other's positions since the Working Group C period (1998) and have had nothing in agreement then or subsequent. What I suggest is that everyone try and understand each other, that when there is disagreement over whether "regulation" applies, that that is not overlooked by reference to some other benefit, or harm, and the assumption offered by Verisign, and its non-competitor imitators, currently with TLD franchises, or seeking new TLD franchises, that new TLDs are a sufficient substitute for redelegation or other means of reducing the market share of the incumbent monopoly, while held by some, are not assumed to be held by all, or necessarily valid, however attractive. Eric