That would be ironic, since in the past ICANN asserted that it had antitrust immunity (the courts didn't buy it). Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Burr, Becky Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 3:14 PM To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. Cc: cct-review; Accountability Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "feasible and appropriate" reliance on market mechanisms I’m sorry, I really cannot accept that ICANN is an antitrust regulator 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, 2:59 PM, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org> wrote:
Much better Becky. But I still don´t understand the first (negative) part of the sentence up to the first comma. Would´t it be possible to assert that ICANN recognises its responsibility (trough AoC type of Review commitments), while not being an authority to solve conflicts on competition issues…….
Best
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 1 Feb 2016, at 11:34, Burr, Becky wrote:
Yes, this appears to be semantic, but I’m not sure we are moving the ball forward by asserting that “my” (or “your”) definition of a term is “the” definition. For example, I would say an auction is fundamentally a “market mechanism” and since you cannot have an auction without having auction rules, those rules are also “market mechanisms.” This distinguishes them from the kind of “command and control” “thou shalt not” authority that sovereign regulators possess – and that IMHO, ICANN does not.
I’m beginning to feel that no one is willing to compromise, but I’ll give it another try. How about:
“While acknowledging that ICANN is not an Antitrust 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 and to establish bottom-up policies for allocating top-level domains (e.g., auction rules, community preferences, etc.).”
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>
From: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 2:05 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>, cct-review <cct-review@icann.org<mailto:cct-review@icann.org>>, Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-com munity@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "feasible and appropriate" reliance on market mechanisms
Carlos and Becky,
I think this is a semantic issue. Relying on market mechanisms essentially means taking a "hands-off" position with regard to the market. Under this approach, the market is allowed to define itself and to use such "market mechanisms" as supply and demand. It does not mean the opposite (having an entity exercise control over the market through timing, availability, objection proceedings, approval of potential buyers, etc.).
If ICANN relied solely on market mechanisms, the AGB would be 20 pages long and you could walk up to the window today and buy .piru (and so could I). (That might be an exaggeration...)
Everything that ICANN does to define the market, to control entry into the market, to define how the market works, to introduce reservation, objection and protection processes, etc., is a step away from relying on "market mechanisms."
I'm sure there are economists and others who can define this better than me....
Greg
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> 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<tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367<tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz<http://neustar.biz> <http://www.neustar.biz>
On 2/1/16, 12:59 PM, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg@isoc-cr.org<mailto: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<tel:%2B506%208837%207176> 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://neustar.biz><http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Co mmunity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailm an
_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDAL C_
lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vxemPO-I_e47KeqKF nc
vv3fG9osjfWABNnfdCgTavbQ&s=RPsVggwEO04zEac-Gzt4MRtRpg-g1-85yYxF_K2z9Wc& e=
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Comm unity@icann.org>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman _listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_ lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ffTyBDha1tLFrJFjIV- wk0SWTxA7ykeA0qM9KSHr-6w&s=uh71cT6hk253aAPYFESE1u-EO0bqbcQhl9y7pGMkoVM&e=
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailma n_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC _lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=JcHS0rBaiXEt16qYdn q4aLvvBL7k3CBphYI_hj0LJjI&s=8kn-NCoyz0EfgyMEJBIdsjuKr6Kmz59fWGa9NlKV6pI&e =>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community