<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I support reverting the existing Bylaws language. I have some problems with the explanatory text, though. The suggested language is:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">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 </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">competition</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">-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.</span></font><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">First, I wouldn't say "ICANN does not possess antitrust expertise." I'm sure that ICANN is really well advised on antitrust matters by Jones Day; Joe Sims, the partner behind the Jones Day relationship, is a first-rate antitrust lawyer and Jones Day has a strong antitrust practice. I think ICANN has all the antitrust expertise it needs available to it.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Second, I would not </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">say that "ICANN does not possess antitrust ... authority." Not because it isn't true (it is; only governments and regional authorities (e.g., the EU) have antitrust authority), but because I don't see how it's relevant. I don't think anyone has ever asserted that ICANN has antitrust authority. ICANN doesn't need to be an antitrust authority to take action (or to take no action) under this Bylaw.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Third, I am just uncertain what is meant by "</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">the authority, for example, to refer </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">competition</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">-related questions regarding new registry services to competent authorities under the RSEP program.</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">" Is this something that ICANN has done? I am not aware of any system by which the US antitrust authorities (DOJ and FTC) take questions and provide advisory opinions or no action letters or anything similar, except with regard to Hart-Scott-Rodino Act questions (which is irrelevant here).</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I do agree with the very last part, that ICANN needs to have the authority "</span><span style="font-size:12.8px">to establish bottom-up policies for allocating top-level domains (e.g., community preference), etc." This is an example of one type of action where ICANN is not just letting the market find its own level; there are certainly others, and not only relating to the TLD marketplace. Many of ICANN's actions and policies have an effect on the marketplace (RPMs, reserved names at both levels, name collision reservations, etc., etc.) (I will note with some sympathy Alan Greenberg's concern that not every ICANN policy is categorically "bottom-up.")</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px">I would suggest the following revised language:</span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font color="#0000ff"><span style="font-size:12.8px">While acknowledging that ICANN does not possess unlimited latitude to take actions relating to markets, on balance the CCWG elected to retain the introductory language to ensure that ICANN continues to have the ability </span><span style="font-size:12.8px">to establish policies (consistent with antitrust/competition and other applicable laws) such as those for allocating top-level domains (e.g., community preference), etc.</span></font><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Greg</span></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Sullivan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com" target="_blank">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 07:49:03PM +0000, Burr, Becky wrote:<br>
> 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:<br>
><br>
</span>[elided]<br>
<br>
I can support that (speaking personally).<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
A<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><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>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>