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

Mon Feb 1 19:59:32 UTC 2016

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 does not possess is not an 
> 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 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 at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 2:05 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
> Cc: "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." 
> <crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>, cct-review 
> <cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>, Accountability 
> Community 
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at 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 at neustar.biz<mailto: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<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 at isoc-cr.org<mailto: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<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 at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=JcHS0rBaiXEt16qYdnq4aLvvBL7k3CBphYI_hj0LJjI&s=8kn-NCoyz0EfgyMEJBIdsjuKr6Kmz59fWGa9NlKV6pI&e=>