Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

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

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D. wrote:

> > on the fact that it is allegedly anticompetitive. It strikes me that ICANN,
> > with its limited staff resources and its necessary reliance on volunteer
> > policy contributions from the stakeholder community, ought not be placed in
> > the position of deciding what is or is not "anticompetitive." Surely even
> > those registrars who most oppose the WLS appreciate the danger in creating
> > an ICANN that becomes a market regulator.
>
> You are confusing ICANN's charter with a mandate to enforce antitrust law.
> Nobody asked ICANN to be a market regulator, or to see that antitrust law is
> not violated.

  This is a good point.  I would ask some questions long these lines. Some
of which have been ask a number of times already without and answer.
1.) Shouldn't a responsible corporate structure, such as ICANN is supposed
to be, see to it that it as a corporate entity not violate antitrust law?
2.) Is or is not, ICANN a public service corporation managing a public
resource(s) supposed to serve the users of that/those resources responsible
for any potential antitrust concerns in it's potential for determining policy's)?

>  However, ICANN is required to do what it does (a) by
> consensus, and (b) in such a manner as to foster and promote some concept of
> "competition".

  Also a good point, and these have been hashed over a number of times
now as well.  But again, questions remain unanswered still along these
lines also.  For instance: 1.) Is consensus just declared and not verified
by some voting type of mechanism?  2.) Whom are those that determine
what and when a consensus is reached?  3.) What are the basic
precepts of creating competition in Registry/registrar services?
(There are of course many more questions in this area)

>  Because you are a lawyer, you translate that into some legal
> standard.  But that is not necessarily how the MoU is to be interpreted.  The
> MoU requirement to favor competition is simply that, and did not import
> whatever extrinsic constructs one might attach to the term.

  Yes this also is a good point.  Also no restrictions are extrinsic
as constructs as well...

>
>
> Mr. Neumann's consensus of 4, along with the ccTLD folks who generally won't
> pee in anyone's pool as long as they are treated the same way, is hardly a
> thundering consensus that the proposed service comports with that which ICANN
> is indeed chartered to do, but for which precise legal definitions are not
> incorporated into the MoU.

  Exactly right.

>
>
> >When I say ICANN should remain neutral, I mean just that. It
> > should be careful to ensure that Verisign cannot argue later that ICANN
> > either required or blessed the WLS.
>
> It is clear that you anticipate exactly what one line of defense would be, no
> matter how "carefully" ICANN were to permit the service.  Expect a lot of
> PGMedia citations in the brief.
>
> I doubt that there is enough money involved in the present circumstances to
> support litigation, even after you propose that we kill the revenue stream
> and then have them litigate.  If you look at the numbers posted here earlier
> by Dotster, it is clear that WLS will generate a fat lot of revenue in one
> place, whereas a much smaller amount of revenue is more thinly distributed
> now.  Interesting how "helping consumers" will generate an aggregate higher
> income from the same folk.

  Yes isn't it indeed interesting!

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders 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:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
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