DOCSLIB.ORG

FCLI 2020 Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FCLI 2020 Agenda Fordham Competition Law Institute Antitrust Economics Workshop October 7, 2020 9:15 a.m.–2:30 p.m. 47th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law & Policy October 8-9, 2020 Day 1: 8:15 a.m.–3 p.m. Day 2: 8:15 a.m.–1 p.m. Fordham Law School Virtually Fordham Competition Law Institute Antitrust Workshops Wednesday, October 7, 2020 8–9 a.m. Speakers and Sponsors Welcome Breakfast/Lunch James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group Morning Economics Session Sponsored by Edgeworth Economics 9:15–11 a.m. Conflicting Decisions in Pharmaceutical Class Certification Workshop (2.0 CLE) MODERATOR: George Korenko, PhD, Partner, Edgeworth Economics PANELISTS: Jeffrey C. Bank, Partner, Wilson Sonsini; Justin Bernick, Partner, Hogan Lovells; Danielle R. Foley, Partner, Venable LLP; Tram Nguyen, PhD, Principal Consultant, Edgeworth Economics 11–11:15 a.m. Break Heads of Authority Workshop 11:15 a.m.–12:15 p.m. Heads of Authority Q&A Workshop (1.0 CLE) MODERATOR: James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group PANELISTS: Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive, U.K. Competition and Markets Authority; Isabelle de Silva, President, Autorité de la Concurrence; Cani Fernández, President, Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia; Olivier Guersent, Director-General, European Commission, Margarida Matos Rosa, President, Portuguese Competition Authority; Gabriella Muscolo, Commissioner, Autoritá Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato; Christine Wilson, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission Afternoon Economics Session Sponsored by The Brattle Group 12:30–2:15 p.m. Antitrust Economics Workshop (2.0 CLE) Panel 1: Econometrics and Modeling for Mergers, Globally (12:30-1:20 p.m.) MODERATOR: Renée Duplantis, Principal, The Brattle Group PANELISTS: Konstantin Ebinger, Principal, The Brattle Group; Thorsten Mäger, Partner, Hengeler Mueller; Loren Smith, Principal, The Brattle Group; Justin Stewart-Teitelbaum, Partner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP Panel 2: Understanding Network Effects in the Platform Context (1:20-2:15 p.m.) MODERATOR: Mike Cragg, Principal and Chairman of the Board, The Brattle Group PANELISTS: Rosa Abrantes-Metz, New York University, Stern School of Business; Evan Chesler, Chairman, Cravath Swaine & Moore; Lars Kjølbye, Partner, Latham & Watkins; Kai-Uwe Kühn, Academic Advisor, The Brattle Group 2:15–2:30 p.m. Closing Remarks 47th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy DAY 1: THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2020 7:15–8:15 a.m. Sponsors Networking Breakfasts Skadden Arps and Clifford Chance 8:15–8:30 a.m. Introductions and Welcome James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group 8:30–9:50 a.m. Keynote Remarks Margrethe Vestager, Executive Vice President, A Europe Fit for the Digital Age, and Competition Commissioner Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice Panel Discussion Howard Shelanski, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP; Professor of Law, Georgetown University Michele Davis, Partner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 9:50–10 a.m. Break 10–11:20 a.m. Panel 1: Tech, Platform and Privacy – What the Future Holds (1.5 CLE) MODERATOR: Renata Hesse, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP PANELISTS: Cani Fernández, President, Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia; Bernard (Barry) A. Nigro, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, US DJustice;epartment Sean of Royall , Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Koren Wong-Ervin, Partner, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Principal 11:20–11:30 a.m. Break 11:30 a.m.–12:50 p.m. Panel 2: Merger Issues – A Global Perspective (1.5 CLE) MODERATOR: Josh Soven, Partner, Wilson Sonsini PANELISTS: Isabelle de Silva, President, Autorité de la Concurrence; Daniel Francis, Deputy Director, Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission; D. Bruce Hoffman, Partner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; Axel Schulz, Partner, White & Case LLP 12:50–1 p.m. Break 1–2 p.m. Plenary Networking Event and Fireside Chat (1.0 CLE) MODERATOR: James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group PANELISTS William Kovacic, Global Competition Professor of Law and Policy, The George Washington University Law School; Barry E. Hawk, Founder, Competition Law Institute; Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School 2–3 p.m. Sponsors Networking Event Sponsored by Freshfields DAY 2: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2020 7:15–8:15 a.m. Sponsors Networking Breakfast Kirkland & Ellis and Davis Polk 8:15–8:30 a.m. Introductions and Welcome James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group 8:30–9:50 a.m. Keynote Remarks Joseph J. Simons, Chairman, U.S. Federal Trade Commission Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive, U.K. Competition and Markets Authority Panel Discussion Antonio Bavasso, Partner and co-head Antitrust, Allen & Overy LLP Sharis Pozen, Partner, Clifford Chance LLP 9:50–10 a.m. Break 10–11 a.m. Plenary Networking Event and Fireside Chat MODERATOR: James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group PANELISTS: Frédéric Jenny, Professor of Economics, ESSEC Business School and Chairman, OECD Competition Committee; Terrell McSweeny, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP 11–11:15 a.m. Break 11:15 a.m.–12:45 p.m. In-House Counsel Roundtable: Competition and Other Issues in a Pandemic Environment MODERATOR: Karen Hoffman Lent, Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP PANELISTS: Gabrielle Kohlmeier, Associate General Counsel, Antitrust & Strategic Projects, Verizon; Jon Lutinski, Vice President and Chief Antitrust Counsel, American Express; Rob Mahini, Senior Counsel, Google; Suzanne Wachsstock, Chief Antitrust Counsel, Walmart 12:45–1 p.m. Closing Remarks James Keyte, FCLI Director and Adjunct Professor of Law, Fordham Law School; Director of Global Development, The Brattle Group 1 p.m. Conference Adjourns CLE CREDITS & MATERIALS CLE credits have been approved in accordance with the requirements of the New York State CLE Board for transitional and nontransitional professional practice credit, as detailed below. • Conference: maximum of 9.0 credit hours • Antitrust Economics Workshop: maximum of 4 credit hours CLE materials are available for download at law.fordham.edu/clematerials. Sponsors The Fordham Competition Law Institute acknowledges the generous support of our conference and workshop sponsors. Flagship Networking Speaker and Sponsor Receptions Speaker’s Sponsors Antitrust Economics Workshop Sponsors Sustaining Sponsors Exclusive Media Partner Fordham Competition Law Institute 2020 Speaker Bios Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz Adjunct Associate Professor NYU Stern School of Business A known expert in price-fixing and market manipulation, Dr. Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz has taught at the NYU Stern School of Business since 2009. Her primary areas of research are antitrust, financial regulation and financial markets, conspiracies, manipulations, and econometrics. Dr. Abrantes-Metz has over 15 years of experience in economic consulting, where she applies her academic expertise to real-life scenarios. She is a former economist for the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. Abrantes-Metz has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals; trade publications; and mainstream media publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Investor's Business Daily. She has a PhD and an MA in Economics from The University of Chicago, and a Masters in Economics from the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. She also holds a Licenciatura in Economics from Universidade Católica Portuguesa in Lisbon. Jeffrey C. Bank Partner Wilson Sonsini Jeff Bank is a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, where he practices antitrust litigation and counseling, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry. Jeff is an experienced litigator representing both plaintiffs and defendants. His work has ranged from complex multi- district litigations and global cartel cases to actions against competitors. He has successfully defended pharmaceutical, technology, and media companies against class actions, and has experience in all aspects of litigation, from discovery through appeal. He regularly counsels clients on merger clearance issues and business practices, and he has represented a diverse range of clients before the FTC, including companies from the medical device, pharmaceutical, and media sectors. Jeff was recently named a “Rising Star” for 2020 by Law360. Antonio Bavasso Partner and co-head Antitrust Allen & Overy LLP Antonio Bavasso is the co-head of the global antitrust practice and also co-head of the telecoms, media and technology practice. He is recognised as a leading expert in antitrust and regulation, practising primarily in London and Brussels. Over the years he has advised on a number of precedent-setting merger and behavioural investigations as well as regulatory and antitrust litigation, at EU, UK and international levels. These include: 21st Century Fox on its proposed acquisition of Sky, on its acquisition by The Walt Disney Company, and on its sale of Sky Italia and its 57.4% stake in Sky Deutschland to BSkyB; News Corporation/News UK on various strategic matters including the revision of the Times Undertakings; 20th Century Fox on various matters including
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Agenda for FTC Hearing #3: Competition and Consumer
    Monday, October 15, 2018 9:00-9:05 am Welcome and Introductory Remarks Henry N. Butler George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School 9:05-9:20 am Welcome and Introductory Remarks Rohit Chopra, Commissioner Federal Trade Commission 9:20-9:50 am The Economics of Multi-Sided Platforms David S. Evans Global Economics Group 9:50-10:10 am Network Effects in Multi-Sided Platforms Catherine Tucker Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management 10:10-10:20 am Break 10:20-12:20 pm The Current Economic Understanding of Multi-Sided Platforms Participants: David S. Evans Katja Seim Global Economics Group University of Pennsylvania Wharton School Joseph Farrell University of California, Berkeley Howard Shelanski Department of Economics Georgetown University Law Center Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP Marc S. Rysman Boston University Catherine Tucker Department of Economics Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management Michael A. Salinger Boston University Questrom School of Business Moderator: John M. Yun George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School 12:20-1:30 pm Lunch Break 2 | Page 1:30-3:00 pm Multi-Sided Platforms in Action Participants: Elizabeth J. Altman Steven Tadelis University of Massachusetts Lowell University of California, Berkeley Manning School of Business Haas School of Business Scott Kupor Ben Thompson Andreessen Horowitz Stratechery, LLC Roger McNamee Elevation Partners Moderator: Jan Rybnicek George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP 3:00-3:15 pm Break 3:15-5:00 pm Defining Relevant Markets and Establishing Market Power in Cases Involving Multi-Sided Platforms Participants: Tasneem Chipty Michael A.
    [Show full text]
  • Embargoed Until Delivered TESTIMONY of HOWARD
    Embargoed Until Delivered EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 www.whitehouse.gov/omb TESTIMONY OF HOWARD SHELANSKI ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE, BENEFITS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 3, 2015 Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Cartwright, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly and members of the Subcommittees: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the activities and priorities of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). As the Administrator of OIRA, it is my privilege to work with the skilled and dedicated OIRA staff, the first-rate leadership team at the Office of Management and Budget, and our excellent colleagues throughout the Government. We are all working to continue our Nation’s economic recovery and employment growth while protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Americans, now and into the future. OIRA has a broad portfolio that ranges from coordination of Government-wide information and statistical policy to review of Executive Branch regulations to international regulatory cooperation. For example, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, OIRA is responsible for reviewing collections of information by the Federal Government to ensure that they are not unnecessarily burdensome. OIRA also develops and oversees the implementation of Government-wide statistical standards and policies, facilitates efficient and effective data sharing, and provides guidance on privacy and confidentiality policy to Federal agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Professor of Law
    March 17, 2017 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley, Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate 331 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: We are a group of law professors and legal scholars who write to urge the Senate to confirm Judge Neil M. Gorsuch as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. We are a diverse group of scholars with a wide range of backgrounds, and we hold both liberal and conservative political views. We are united, however, in the belief that Judge Gorsuch will bring the highest judicial standards to the Court. Although we may not agree with each decision or vote he will cast, we all agree that Judge Gorsuch is eminently qualified to serve on the Court and that his jurisprudence is within the mainstream of contemporary legal thought. Taken together, these traits should ensure his confirmation. Judge Gorsuch’s credentials are first-rate. He holds an undergraduate degree from Columbia University, a law degree from Harvard University, and a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University. His career has covered nearly every facet of the law. After law school, Judge Gorsuch served as a law clerk to Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court. For ten years, he worked at the firm Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel as both a trial and appellate lawyer, ultimately becoming a partner there.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 STATEMENT of HOWARD SHELANSKI Nominee to Serve As
    STATEMENT OF HOWARD SHELANSKI Nominee to Serve As Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS June 12, 2013 Thank you Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the Committee for welcoming me today. It is an honor to be considered by this committee as the President’s nominee to be Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I would like to start off this morning by thanking my family for their support in taking on this challenge. I am glad to have Nicole Soulanille, our son Isaac Shelanski, and my parents Vivien and Michael Shelanski here with me today. I also want to thank the Members of the Committee and their staffs for meeting with me over the last few weeks. I appreciate the time many of you took from your busy schedules and thank you for sharing your insights and views as I prepared for this hearing. For those of you I have not yet had the opportunity to meet, I look forward to doing so in the future. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and maintaining open communications. I would welcome your perspectives on the matters with which OIRA is concerned. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, often referred to as OIRA, plays an essential role in developing and overseeing the implementation of Government-wide policies on regulation, information collection, information quality and technology, statistical standards, scientific evidence, and privacy. I am humbled by my nomination to lead such an important organization.
    [Show full text]
  • ICN Unilateral Conduct Working Group
    1 ICN Unilateral Conduct Working Group TELESEMINAR ON REMEDIES IN UNILATERAL CONDUCT CASES 11 MARCH 2010 Introductory Remarks by Operator 2 y Welcome by Operator y Panelists and Participants please note: { Audience will be muted during most parts of the teleseminar call („Audience Call“) { Audience will be be unmuted during Q&A { Teleseminar will be recorded y Operator will then turn over to UCWG Co-host Markus Lange (Bundeskartellamt, Germany) Welcome by UCWG Co-Chair Markus Lange 3 y ICN teleseminars have proven to be effective instruments to provide a forum for the sharing of experience and the fostering of consensus. y Today’s seminar is the second teleseminar held by the ICN Unilateral Conduct Working Group. The first seminar on Excessive Pricing was very well received and more than 150 participants joined. A recording is posted on the ICN website. y This seminar aims to promote the understanding of remedies in unilateral conduct cases. y The slides prepared will lead you through the seminar. They can be downloaded from the ICN website. Those of you that have registered in advance can also follow along by going on the link provided to you along with the confirmation. y The agenda for today’s teleseminar is as follows: Teleseminar Agenda 4 y I. Introduction by co-host Randy Tritell (U.S. Federal Trade Commission) y II. Presentation of Principles and Issues to Consider in Crafting Remedies by Howard Shelanski (U.S. Federal Trade Commission) y III. Panel Discussion of Hypothetical 1 y IV. Q & A with Audience regarding Hypothetical 1 y V.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-03-15 Howard Shelanski OMB Testimony
    EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERED EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 www.whitehouse.gov/omb TESTIMONY OF HOWARD SHELANSKI ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 15, 2016 Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the role that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) plays in the transparency and accountability of the federal regulatory process. As the Administrator of OIRA, it is my privilege to work with the dedicated OIRA staff, the first-rate leadership team at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and our excellent colleagues throughout the Government. We are all working to promote economic growth and job creation while protecting the health, safety, and welfare of Americans, now and into the future. OIRA has a broad portfolio, but the largest area of OIRA’s work is the review of regulations promulgated by Executive Branch departments and agencies. A set of Executive Orders (E.O.s)—most significantly E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563—provides the principles and procedures for OIRA’s regulatory reviews. Regulatory process in the United States is premised to an unrivaled degree on two principles: transparency and accountability. One of my priorities as OIRA Administrator has been to increase the transparency of the regulatory process by improving notice and predictability for the 1 public.
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Enforcement, Regulation, and Digital Platforms
    ARTICLE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT, REGULATION, AND DIGITAL PLATFORMS WILLIAM P. ROGERSON† & HOWARD SHELANSKI†† INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1912 I. GOING BEYOND ADJUDICATION FOR ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT ...................................................................... 1917 A. Case-by-Case, Fact-Specific Approach ........................................... 1917 B. Slow, Usually Predictable Doctrinal Development ........................... 1918 C. Market-Driven Case Selection .................................................... 1919 D. Generalists versus Industry Experts ............................................. 1920 E. Tradeoffs Inherent in the Adjudicatory Approach to Antitrust ........... 1921 F. A Regulatory Alternative ........................................................... 1924 II. LIGHT HANDED PRO-COMPETITIVE (LHPC) REGULATION .... 1924 A. Introduction ............................................................................. 1924 B. Potential Types of Regulation ...................................................... 1927 1. Interconnection/Interoperability Requirements and Common Standards .......................................................... 1927 2. Limits on Discrimination ................................................. 1930 3. Data Portability ............................................................... 1933 4. Line-of-Business Restrictions ........................................... 1934 5. Additional Restrictions on Business Practices Currently †
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony (PDF)
    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503 www.whitehouse.gov/omb TESTIMONY OF HOWARD SHELANSKI ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY POLICY HEALTHCARE AND ENTITLEMENTS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES July 18, 2013 Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I was recently confirmed as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and I am honored to be serving in this role. I look forward to speaking with you about the social cost of carbon. When I refer to the “social cost of carbon” (SCC) I mean the values used to calculate the monetary costs and benefits of incremental changes in the volume of carbon emissions in a given year. The social cost of carbon includes, for example, changes in net agricultural productivity and human health, property damage from increased flood risk, energy system costs, and the value of ecosystem services lost because of climate change. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to use the best available scientific, technical, economic, and other information to quantify the costs and benefits of rules. Rigorous evaluation of costs and benefits has been a core tenet of the rulemaking process for decades through Republican and Democratic Administrations. This fundamental principle of using the best available information underpins the Administration’s efforts to develop and update its estimates of the social cost of carbon.
    [Show full text]
  • Fordham Competition Law Institute CLE Conference Day 1 Materials
    Fordham Competition Law Institute CLE Conference Day 1 Materials Antitrust Economics Workshop September 11, 2019 9:10 a.m.–4:25 p.m. 46th Annual Conference on International Antitrust Law & Policy September 12–13, 2019 Day 1: 9:15 a.m.–4:40 p.m. Day 2: 9 a.m.–1:50 p.m. Fordham Law School Skadden Conference Center | 150 West 62nd Street New York City Fordham Competition Law Institute Conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy Day 1 Table of Contents 1. Speaker Biographies (view in document) 2. CLE Materials Keynote Remarks Supporting documents Pound, Jesse. CNBC. ‘A couple of Dozen’ states are Panel 3: Private Litigation Around the World considering an antitrust probe of Big Tech, says DOJ Official. (view on web) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Collective Actions in Europe. (view in document) Panel 1: Big Tech and Antitrust: What Lies Ahead Global Legal Group, et al.. The International Comparative Hausfeld, Michael; Scher, Irving; Spero, Michaela. Legal Guide to: Competition Litigation 2019. 11th Edition. Applying Amex: When Two-Sided Platforms Become One (view in document) Market. (view in document) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. Merrick v. Keyte, James. Why The Atlantic Divide on Mastercard: UK Class Actions Back Under the Spotlight. Monopoly/Dominance Law and Enforcement Is So Difficult (view in document) to Bridge. (view in document) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. New Era of Panel 2: Industrial Policy and Antitrust Collective Actions in Europe. (view in document) Smith, Noah. Bloomberg Opinion Economics. Should Government “Pick Winners”? It’s Worked Before. (view on web) Rima Alaily contracts.
    [Show full text]
  • Tim Berners-Lee Berners-Lee Invented the World Wide Web. He Is
    Tim Berners-Lee Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. He is the Director of the World Wide Web Consortium and the 3Com Founders Professor of Engineering in the School of Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds a joint appointment with the MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at the Laboratory for Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. Vinton G. Cerf Cerf is recognized as one of the fathers of the Internet. He is currently vice president and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. His honorary degrees and awards include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and membership in the National Academy of Engineering. KC Claffy Claffy is Director of the Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) based at the San Diego Supercomputer Center of the University of California, San Diego. She founded CAIDA in 1996 and leads its research in Internet data collection, analysis, and visualization, and in enabling others to make use of the data and results. Dr. Claffy received the IEEE Internet Award in 2014 for her “seminal contributions to the field of Internet measurement, including security and network data analysis, and for distinguished leadership in and service to the Internet community by providing open-access data and tools.” Paul de Sa de Sa is a Senior Analyst at Bernstein Research. Prior to joining Bernstein, he worked at the FCC, serving as Chief of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and working on a wide variety of issues before the commission such as broadband and spectrum policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cary Coglianese, University of Pennsylvania
    Penn Program on Regulation Cary Coglianese, Director Edward B. Shils Professor ofLaw and Professor ofPolitical Science September 22, 2013 The Hon. Howard Shelanski Administrator, Office ofInformation and Regulatory Affairs The Office ofManagement and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Dear Administrator Shelanski, This letter, with enclosures, responds to your request for my review ofthe Draft 2013 Report to Congress on the Benefits and Costs ofFederal Regulations ("Draft Report") available on the OMB website. You asked for comments on the "format and substance" ofthe Draft Report - and you specifically sought my thoughts on the following four recommendations as stated in your August 9th email: (a) retrospective analysis should become a routine part of agency rulemaking, and formal mechanisms should be maintained to reevaluate rules that may be unjustified, excessive, insufficient, or unduly complex; (b) agencies should communicate with the public in a way that is clear, simple, meaningful, and jargon-free; (c) objective, evidence-based assessment of costs and benefits should be used as an integral part ofthe regulatory decision-making process; and (d) agencies should align their priorities across all levels of internal hierarchy. I certainly endorse the first three ofthese recommendations. In various ways they comport with suggestions I have separately urged for some years in my own writing. For example, as the Draft Report notes (p. 9), recommendations (a) and (c) are integrally connected with each other. In a 2005 co-authored paper, published as part ofa National Research Council report, I wrote that retrospective "evaluation research provides valuable information for policy decision making," further observing that: The staff and political officials in state and federal regulatory agencies, legislatures, and other oversight bodies (such as the Office of Management and Budget) need to design and implement policies that work to achieve their goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Today's Politics Upend Sound Regulation?
    WILL TODAY’S POLITICS UPEND SOUND REGULATION? BY HOWARD SHELANSKI Americans demand regulatory safeguards but also want limits on government intervention. We take for granted that our tap water is drinkable, that our air is breathable, that the products we buy will perform as advertised, and that our work and living places are safe. Hard experience shows that completely unregulated markets do not reliably or consistently deliver those things. But experience also teaches that regulation is not the answer to every problem and can have harmful consequences. In these circumstances, those who argue either that American society does not need regulation of any kind or that government should impose a rule to address every problem have deservedly not gained much traction in actual policy making. Instead, regulation has resulted from a more pragmatic process through which government agencies use available knowledge, evidence, and models to develop workable solutions to real problems. Agencies carry out this work within a legal framework that requires them to stay within the scope of their statutory authority, to give the public notice of rulemakings, to afford the public an opportunity to comment on proposed rules, and to justify final rules with a written record subject to judicial review. Even before executive agencies can publish significant proposed and final regulations, those rules are subject to review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Because of such procedural constraints, rulemaking in practice involves incremental analysis of tradeoffs among different things society wants, not one-sided focus on only costs or only benefits; regulations result from detailed explanation and balancing of competing effects, not from overwrought, partisan conjectures.
    [Show full text]