[ga-full] US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust analysis

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

All assembly members,

  A very interesting letter exchange between Becky Burr DOC/NTIA
and Jamie love:
==========================

Subject:
             US DOC: government control of root is material to antitrust
analysis
        Date:
             Sat, 01 Apr 2000 12:21:13 -0500
       From:
             James Love <love@cptech.org>
 Organization:
             http://www.cptech.org
         To:
             NCDNHC <NCDNHC-Discuss@lyris.isoc.org>




I sent Beck Burr from the US Department of Commerce, a copy of a letter
I sent to the ABA listserve on the potential antitrust
issues in ICANN imposing restrictions on the use of famous names.  (This

leter can be read here:
http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2000-March/000128.html).

Becky was kind enough to respond, twice, on this issue, and indicated I
may share these letters on listserves.

Jamie


<---------- 1st letter from Becky Burr---------------->

Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:54:22 -0500
  From: "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>
    To: <love@cptech.org>, <lessig@pobox.com>
    CC: <mpalage@infonetworks.com>

Jamie,

Thanks for sending this along, and I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to

discuss some of the issues in here later this afternoon.  I would,
however, characterize some issues in a different way, and that different

characterization might have some implications for an antitrust analysis.

1.  ICANN does not control the Internet's authoritative root. Network
Solutions operates the A root, at the direction of the Department of
Commerce.  Every change to the authoritative root file must be approved
by the USG.  Any antitrust analysis would likely consider this material.

2.  It is certainly true that there is currently no effective
competition for .com in the TLD space at the time.  Most commenters on
the Green Paper argued that there would never be real competition at the

gTLD level, due to lock-in and switching costs.  The USG thought that
they might be wrong, and that at the very least we ought to provide an
opportunity to study this by adding, in a careful and controlled way,
some new gTLD space.

3.  While the ccTLDs are not real competitors at the moment, there are
some interesting changes taking place in these spaces.  The rate of
growth in .uk and .de over the last year, for example, has exceeded the
growth rate in .com.  I think that with some work .us could be very,
very interesting real estate.

4.  It certainly appears to be true that there is some significant
speculation going on in the market for generic second level domains like

cool.com or business.com.  It also is clear that we have not h

>>> James Love <love@cptech.org> 03/31/00 09:32AM >>>
This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
Jamie



>>> James Love <love@cptech.org> 03/31/00 09:32AM >>>
This is a missive I sent yesterday to the ABA antitrust list.
Jamie




<------------my follow-up---------------------------->


Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:28:04 -0500
   From: James Love <love@cptech.org>
 Organization: http://www.cptech.org
        To: Becky Burr <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>
        CC: lessig@pobox.com, mpalage@infonetworks.com
  References:
           1

Becky, thanks for the note.  My copy appears to be missing the end of
your comment.

Do you mind if I share this or a redacted version on the list?  Also,
are you saying that is is DOC's decision to expand the root, rather than

ICANN's?   As a member of ICANN's working groups B and C, this is a bit
of a surprise.  Also, it is great that there will be changes in .us, but

I would not hold out the .us as a substitute for significant changes in
the gTLD space.  I think the Internet is basically a global deal, and
there are some natural reasons why many would be seeking to build a
brand or identity in a space that was not identified with geography.
Certainly many in the union community think that a global .union TLD
will possibly change the nature of the union movement itself, not only
provide their own readily available name to use.  Of course, .us could
also be used better than it is now.    Jamie



<-----------2nd letter from Becky Burr----------------------------->


-- Subject: Re: ICANN's proposed restrictions on use of famous names
   Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 12:12:20 -0500
  From:  "Becky Burr" <bburr@ntia.doc.gov>
    To:  <love@cptech.org>
    CC:  <mpalage@infonetworks.com>, <lessig@pobox.com>


Jamie,


somehow, mysteriously, the email disappeared off my screen, and
apparently  I inadvertently hit the send key before i finished the
email.  I'll finish it later today, and you can post it then.

I understand, and agree, that .us won't be a substitute for a generic.

On the question of USG authority over expansion of the root, the answer
is in two parts.  First, our position on expansion of the root is
clearly laid out in the White Paper - we think that new gTLDs should be
added, but in a careful and controlled way and that ICANN and not the
USG should decide what new gTLDs should be added and how they should be
added (within the parameters of careful and controlled so as to preserve

the stability of the Internet).  But of course, NSI can't change the
Authoritative Root file without our approval.  Under what circumstances
would we not approve ICANN recommendations?  In extremely limited
circumstances like, for instance, where the recommended addition/change
would violate US law.
If, for example, the ICANN process identified consensus for addition of
a .union gTLD, I can't think of any reason that we would object to that
on its face (which is to say, if the rules for registering in a .union
violated US competition law or intellectual property law, we might
object to those rules).

I trust that to the extent the above is quoted, it will be used in
context and in appropriate completeness.  I'll finish the other part of
my email, or just discuss it with you this afternoon.

Becky

===============

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html