RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

["Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Avri, Milton and Mike,
I wish I saw this happening, but I don't. I do not know of any procedure by 
which we can approach the Federal Trade Commission, a leading US consumer 
competition authority, to ask for upfront permission for a new company or 
startup to go forward. 

That's not the way the system works -- you do something, and then get called on 
the carpet. Only the largest companies, particularly in merger situations, go 
before the FTC for per-clearance and evaluation, and then only by virtue of 
their size and dominance in the field. I don't see the FTC, or any equivalent, 
having the time or resources for a pre-clearance process for new gTLDs. I wish 
I did, but I don't.

Best,


Kathy Kleiman
Director of Policy
.ORG The Public Interest Registry
Direct: +1 703 889-5756  Mobile: +1 703 371-6846

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook | dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If 
received in error, please inform sender and then delete.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 3:10 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities


Hi,

yes.  

Anything over the cross-ownership threshold currently set by the Board (i.e. 
zero%), goes to the appropriate competition authority(ies).

And my assumption is, or at least has been, that cross ownership is the 
exception, not the rule.

a.

On 21 Apr 2010, at 14:48, Richard Tindal wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> I think in your revised proposal any application with greater than 0% cross 
> ownership goes to the competition authority(s).      Is that right?
> 
> RT
> 
> 
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:11 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>