At the very least I would think that this gives us a lever to say again that, if ICANN is going to give funding support to these kinds of meetings that they have at least some obligation to fund open ALAC regional meetings.. Gareth On 7-Mar-10, at 11:24 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 8 March 2010 09:37, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
One might want to inquire of an attorney who has expertise in restraint of
trade/anti-trust issues in various countries of the world (in particular US and EU) about these kinds of meetings among competitors particularly given the subject matter, the exclusion of the public, and the fact that the attendees at these meetings have a substantial voice in deciding which aspiring competitors will be allowed to join and participate in the marketplace.
I was also thinking that keeping the meeting closed might bring with it an anti-trust risk.
I know that were I a registry or registrar I would not attend unless I had on file an current opinion letter from may legal counsel that deeply analyzes the situation, not only in my home country but in every country in which I do business or have a legal presence, and gives an unambiguous green light. And I might even bring counsel along to tell me if the subject matter or context has evolved to create legal risk so that it becomes necessary to leave.
Have I read you right, in that you're suggesting that having public observers would actually reduce the meetings' anti-trust liability exposure?
-- Evan Leibovitch evan@telly.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org