RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities

[Milton L Mueller <mueller@xxxxxxx>]

Right, 
If Ry-Rr CO is over 0% in the current MMA proposal (and we could easily change 
that to 15%, it just seemed arbitrary) competition authorities are notified. No 
objection from them, no objection from ICANN. 
--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:51 PM
> To: 'Richard Tindal'; 'Avri Doria'; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
> 
> 
> Richard,
> 
> I believe it was you in Seoul that said if there was a problem, let
> national
> competition authority handle it. So if one of more competition
> authorities
> have a problem then that gTLD applicant has much bigger problems on its
> hands, e.g. potential jail time. ICANN's process has no special "get out
> of
> jail free" qualities that would prevent a national competition authority
> from bringing its own enforcement action. I think we need to always
> remember
> that in the back of our head.
> 
> ICANN is a global trustee of a public resource, the reason I opposed
> your
> laissez-faire approach in Seoul was that I thought it irresponsible for
> ICANN to create a progress that generated problems and then expected
> governments to bail it out of hot water. The Team MMA proposal is
> modeled in
> the spirit of the AoC which has ICANN working in collaboration with
> governments to prevent a problem before it happens. It is not intended
> to
> over regulate smaller registries, or impose artificial ownership
> percentages
> that have no factual/market basis.
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-
> feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Richard Tindal
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:19 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Competition authorities
> 
> 
> 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.
> >
> >
>