I feel Becky's proposal to revert to existing bylaws text is a good one. As to the explanatory text I think that Becky and Greg perhaps could be able to hammer out a compromise solution... Regards Jorge -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams Gesendet: Montag, 1. Februar 2016 07:32 An: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "feasible and appropriate" reliance on market mechanisms
First, I wouldn't say "ICANN does not possess antitrust expertise." I'm sure that ICANN is really well advised on antitrust matters by Jones Day; Joe Sims, the partner behind the Jones Day relationship, is a first-rate antitrust lawyer and Jones Day has a strong antitrust practice. I think ICANN has all the antitrust expertise it needs available to it.
I would be surprised if it were otherwise. Joe was evident during the VI work, and he has associates. I concur, though for another reason, with Greg's second point (authority). I share Greg's uncertainty as to the meaning of some competition related consequence of the RSEP program, as I recall the RSEP being motivated by a desire to ensure unusual registry proposals, or under-funded ones, were given more scrutiny than registry proposals that simply offered to follow the VGRS business model. I do differ on whether policy must arise "bottom up". We criticise Board and Staff when policy arives out of the clear blue sky, e.g., the VI flip flop Peter shared with us. Removing it would remove the current basis for criticising policies, and processes, which don't quite pass the smell test. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community