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

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Mon Feb 1 18:39:25 UTC 2016

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

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
>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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list