[CCWG-ACCT] "feasible and appropriate" reliance on market mechanisms

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.]

:)

.piru

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On 1 Feb 2016, at 11:05, Greg Shatan wrote:

> 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 at 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  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz
>> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/16, 12:59 PM, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <crg at 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 at 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=
>>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>