27,652
edits
Changes
→Paper 1: Anti-Trust Laws and Registrar/Registry Integration
The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Whore Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref>
The papers themselves largely propose subordinating ICANN as an entitled policy-making body. Many see the publication of the papers as a response to the aforementioned dismissal of [[GAC]] recommendations by the ICANN board at [[ICANN 41]].<ref>[http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_wrote_those_icann_papers_anyway_european_commission/ Whore Wrote these ICANN Papers Anyway European Commission, circleid.com]</ref> The papers take issue with a range of ICANN decisions and policies; from how they staff the organization, to the new [[gTLD]] program, to their handling of [[ccTLD]]s; as a whole they have been taken as a full assault on the organization's independent legitimacy, and its multi-stakeholder model.<ref>[http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/9/2/4891821.html Blog.InternetGovernance.org]</ref>
====Paper 1: Anti-Trust Laws and Registrar/Registry Integration ====
====Paper 1: Applicable Law====
The first paper deals with the board's 2011 decision in [[ICANN 41|Singapore]] to move from a vertically separated [[registrar]]/[[registry]] model to one that allows competition in the new [[gTLD]] space through integration of the previously separated spheres. The EC does not seem to agree, or is not convinced, that competition will continue to be fostered to the highest degree possible; thus, they see the move as possibly in violation with a number of their own laws, and are generally dissatisfied with the board's decision to move ahead despite opposition from them and the [[GAC]]. The EC believes that businesses will now be in violation of certain anti-trust and other applicable laws, and consequently accuses ICANN of disregarding these laws. However, industry insiders have pointed to the fact that any company in a given jurisdiction traditionally must answer to that jurisdiction's law, regardless of the way ICANN decides to allow its regulations with international businesses to develop. The EC is further seen as misunderstanding the situation when it calls for review mechanisms to review all board decisions. In fact, ICANN does have an [[Independent Review Panel]].
The first paper deals with the board's 2011 decision in [[ICANN 41|Singapore]] to move from a vertically separated [[registrar]]/[[registry]] model to one that allows competition in the new [[gTLD]] space through integration of the previously separated spheres. The EC does not seem to agree, or is not convinced, that competition will continue to be fostered to the highest degree possible; thus, they see the move as possibly in violation with a number of their own laws, and are generally dissatisfied with the board's decision to move ahead despite opposition from them and the [[GAC]]. The EC believes that businesses will now be in violation of certain anti-trust and other applicable laws, and consequently accuses ICANN of disregarding these laws. However, industry insiders have pointed to the fact that any company in a given jurisdiction traditionally must answer to that jurisdiction's law, regardless of the way ICANN decides to allow its regulations with international businesses to develop. The EC is further seen as misunderstanding the situation when it calls for review mechanisms to review all board decisions. In fact, ICANN does have an [[Independent Review Panel]].