<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Carlos and Becky,</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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...)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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."</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'm sure there are economists and others who can define this better than me....</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Burr, Becky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz" target="_blank">Becky.Burr@neustar.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I am sorry that you have seriously misunderstood my comment. I am a<br>
strong advocate for ICANN relying on market mechanisms to increase<br>
competition, and I believe that should be very clear from my comment.<br>
ICANN is not an anti-trust authority. That is simply a statement of fact.<br>
<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
J. Beckwith Burr<br>
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy<br>
General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
Office: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.533.2932" value="+12025332932">+1.202.533.2932</a> Mobile: <a href="tel:%2B1.202.352.6367" value="+12023526367">+1.202.352.6367</a> / <a href="http://neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</span><div><div class="h5">On 2/1/16, 12:59 PM, "Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G." <<a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
>Dear Becky,<br>
><br>
>after signing the AoC in 2008 as a step toward a new round, going trough<br>
>a round of new gTLDs charging rather high applicant fees (or at least<br>
>high enough so as to create barriers to entry for underserved areas) and<br>
>solving competing applications trough pure actions, creating a new GDD<br>
>and greatly increasing the name space, arguing that ICANN does not rely<br>
>on market mechanisms or does not posses the necessary knowledge in the<br>
>implications of competition, is an understatement I can hardly believe<br>
>in February 2016. Hope the CCT reviews will give us all a more realistic<br>
>view.<br>
><br>
>Best regards<br>
><br>
>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>
><a href="tel:%2B506%208837%207176" value="+50688377176">+506 8837 7176</a><br>
>Skype: carlos.raulg<br>
>On 29 Jan 2016, at 11:49, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
><br>
>> All -<br>
>><br>
>> As a follow up to our call on Tuesday regarding the language for Core<br>
>> Value 5/4: The language in the current Bylaws reads as follows:<br>
>><br>
>> Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to<br>
>> promote and sustain a competitive environment.<br>
>><br>
>> The CCWG dropped the introductory ³where feasible and appropriate²<br>
>> when we issued the 1rst Draft Proposal. The ALAC, and now some<br>
>> additional members/participants, have objected to that change. I<br>
>> objected to the reinsertion of that language.<br>
>><br>
>> Based on our call on Tuesday I would characterize the mood as follows:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> * Most folks are indifferent<br>
>> * Some folks feel very strongly that it is very important to retain<br>
>> the ³where feasible and appropriate²<br>
>> * Some folks would probably prefer to drop the language, but no one<br>
>> feels as strongly as I do about it<br>
>><br>
>> I would propose to resolve the situation by reverting the existing<br>
>> Bylaws language and adding the following language to the explanatory<br>
>> text of Recommendation 5:<br>
>><br>
>> While acknowledging that ICANN does not possess antitrust expertise or<br>
>> authority, on balance the CCWG elected to retain the introductory<br>
>> language to ensure that ICANN continues to have the authority, for<br>
>> example, to refer competition-related questions regarding new registry<br>
>> services to competent authorities under the RSEP program, to establish<br>
>> bottom-up policies for allocating top-level domains (e.g., community<br>
>> preference), etc.<br>
>><br>
>> Thoughts?<br>
>><br>
>> J. Beckwith Burr<br>
>> Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer<br>
>> 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006<br>
>> Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 /<br>
>> <a href="http://neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">neustar.biz</a><<a href="http://www.neustar.biz" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.neustar.biz</a>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>><br>
</div></div>>><a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman</a><br>
>>_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwIDaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_<br>
>>lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=vxemPO-I_e47KeqKFnc<br>
>>vv3fG9osjfWABNnfdCgTavbQ&s=RPsVggwEO04zEac-Gzt4MRtRpg-g1-85yYxF_K2z9Wc&e=<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">>><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>