Thank you Becky. While ICANN should not be an authority, the simple fact of assigning small but well defined “unique” resources in the DNS space, requires a lot of common sense and technical knowledge of the implications on the impact of those assignments, be it in the agreements or in the compliance follow up, or in consumer protection issues. How to express this responsibility without risking to be called an authority I have no suggestion. But the previous wording has to be revised or a new external point for those issues defined, be it IRP or something else. Best regards Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 1 Feb 2016, at 10:39, Burr, Becky wrote:
I am sorry that you have seriously misunderstood my comment. I am a strong advocate for ICANN relying on market mechanisms to increase competition, and I believe that should be very clear from my comment. ICANN is not an anti-trust authority. That is simply a statement of fact.
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/1/16, 12:59 PM, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Dear Becky,
after signing the AoC in 2008 as a step toward a new round, going trough a round of new gTLDs charging rather high applicant fees (or at least high enough so as to create barriers to entry for underserved areas) and solving competing applications trough pure actions, creating a new GDD and greatly increasing the name space, arguing that ICANN does not rely on market mechanisms or does not posses the necessary knowledge in the implications of competition, is an understatement I can hardly believe in February 2016. Hope the CCT reviews will give us all a more realistic view.
Best regards
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 29 Jan 2016, at 11:49, Burr, Becky wrote:
All -
As a follow up to our call on Tuesday regarding the language for Core Value 5/4: The language in the current Bylaws reads as follows:
Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.
The CCWG dropped the introductory ³where feasible and appropriate² when we issued the 1rst Draft Proposal. The ALAC, and now some additional members/participants, have objected to that change. I objected to the reinsertion of that language.
Based on our call on Tuesday I would characterize the mood as follows:
* Most folks are indifferent * Some folks feel very strongly that it is very important to retain the ³where feasible and appropriate² * Some folks would probably prefer to drop the language, but no one feels as strongly as I do about it
I would propose to resolve the situation by reverting the existing Bylaws language and adding the following language to the explanatory text of Recommendation 5:
While acknowledging that ICANN does not possess antitrust expertise or authority, on balance the CCWG elected to retain the introductory language to ensure that ICANN continues to have the authority, for example, to refer competition-related questions regarding new registry services to competent authorities under the RSEP program, to establish bottom-up policies for allocating top-level domains (e.g., community preference), etc.
Thoughts?
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vxemPO-I_e47KeqKFnc vv3fG9osjfWABNnfdCgTavbQ&s=RPsVggwEO04zEac-Gzt4MRtRpg-g1-85yYxF_K2z9Wc&e=