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

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. crg at isoc-cr.org
Mon Feb 1 17:59:46 UTC 2016

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 

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 “where feasible and appropriate” 
> 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 “where feasible and appropriate”
> *   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://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list