[governance] "Oversight"

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I notice the quote from the US does speak about exsting TLDs when was VI removed from existing TLDs.  I might have missed that.

And asking for it to be diassocoated form the new gTLD was nonsensical since that would have had it affecting the exsting gTLDs.  In any case, it eas advice and it was rejected with reasons give.  As you said Bill, that is the way it should be when the advice makes no sense.

avri


William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

>Hi
>
>On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> I did not say it was the GAC that was contacted, though various
>members were.  They are not the competition authorities. 
>
>Sure Avri, didn't say you had.  But the competition authorities seem to
>have communicated with their respective GAC reps, and the message
>didn't seem to be ok fine by us.
>
>
>On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>
>> For the record, the European Commission sent two letters asking for
>> clarifications on the vertical integration between registries and
>> registrar.
>
>
>Thanks Andrea.  Further to your point, just had a look at the Singapore
>meeting transcript
>http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/06/19/icann-gac-board-transcript.  A few
>quotes:
>
>on trademarks
>
>>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: We have had this discussion and it seems to be a
>discussion between the deaf and the stupid, in a way.
>
>>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Well, it's.
>
>>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: There's no point in going through this
>discussion again.
>
>>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: If they both have to do the same thing --
>
>>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: Why don't you take the European trademark regime
>and make that the model for the rest of the world.
>
>on VI
>
>>>EUROPEAN COMMISSION: ...We have set out in that submission that there
>are important concerns and a need for clarifications and further
>substantiation of the reversal of policy to allow vertical integration.
>I'm not clear, like my U.K. colleague, how the ICANN board is take this
>into account….I think an important request to ICANN was that this
>fundamental decision should be disassociated from the launch of the
>gTLD program….the main question now is to hear from the ICANN board how
>it will take into account the concerns set out in our letter and the
>request to disassociate the decision on the competition
>registry/registrar issue from the launch of the new gTLD program...We
>consider it preferable to disassociate such a fundamental decision from
>the new gTLD launch process and maintain for the time being and subject
>to the gathering of further data the existing rules on vertical
>separation between registries and registrars for both new and existing
>gTLDs subject to limited exceptions for clearly pro competitive cases.
>So the question I put to you earlier, and I think I am putting it to
>you even more clearly now, is how are you going to respond to this
>particular request? Are you disassociating it from the launch of the
>new gTLDs or are you sticking to your position or have you modified
>your position in light of the elements that have been put to your
>attention?...
>
>...I find it interesting that the ICANN board members think that they
>have more knowledge about the competition than the competition
>authorities... I mean, in the submission of the European Commission is
>the point I made at the beginning, we advise the ICANN board not to go
>ahead with this. That's what we advise. It is still the advice of the
>European Commission after the clarifications given by the ICANN board
>this evening.
>
>>>UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I just wanted to flag at least one sentence
>in the Department of Justice anti-trust division letter because I am
>also hopeful that we will have a written response. Certainly not today,
>but we will get a response in writing. And there is a fairly direct
>sentence in here that says, "In the division's view, ICANN should
>retain its prohibition on vertical integration for existing gTLDs
>except in cases where ICANN, in consultation with public and private
>sector stakeholders and independent analysts, determines that the
>registry does not have or is unlikely to obtain market power." So there
>are quite a few recommendations that follow that, and it would be
>useful to get your views as to how you might want to follow- up on
>those recommendations. 


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t