[governance] "Oversight"

[Andrea Glorioso]

Thanks Bill.

I'm not sure why you are "mixing" the discussion on trademarks with
the one on competition/antitrust, as generally speaking they are two
separate issues. I provided the exchange of letters just as a
(hopefully useful) reference.

Best,

Andrea

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, 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.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 

--
I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself.
Keep it in mind.
Twitter: @andreaglorioso
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

-------------- 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