Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I would think that if any competition authority has a problem with the degree 
of cross-ownership then it would not be allowed.

Personally I would prefer it if there had been one place every application 
could be sent for checking with competition authorities (e.g. The WTO as a 
supranational competition authority) , but as far as I can tell there isn't 
one.  And like with most laws, if you come under several jurisdictions you are 
bound by the laws of the most restrictive. 

At one point I had suggested that instead of the competition authority, yet 
anther review panel of International competition experts could be used for 
these reviews, but was told by several people that this would not work.  Not 
sure I understand why, but I do accept that we are starting to create a lot of 
those external review panels and that in itself is might be worrisome.

BTW, we are talking like everyone is going to want to be involved in 
cross-ownership whereas I had originally thought it to be the exception.  Why 
do people think that there will lots of application that include 
cross-ownership?  for example in AVC message I felt like this was going to be a 
road block for every poor little new registry and I did not understand that.

a.




On 21 Apr 2010, at 01:18, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> What would happen if the two national competition authorities made differing 
> judgments?
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Apr 20, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Apr 2010, at 18:17, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That said,  I don't know what would stop an applicant from incorporating 
>>>> in a jurisdiction where competition 
>>>> authorities are known to be extremely liberal, or non-existent.  
>>> 
>>> Which is what anyone who wanted to "game" a system would do.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> One of the thoughts that I had on that was that since ICANN is incorporated 
>> in the US, the US competition authorities would always end up  being 
>> consulted as well as any local ones.  
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> 
>