Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

["Ray Fassett" <ray@fassett.org>]

At 8:47 AM -0700 8/24/02, kent@songbird.com wrote:

"But if you operate from the premise that ICANN has *never* been in the
position of regulator, then it has done quite well."

ICANN continues to regulate the number of TLD registries.

"ICANN was never intended to be a regulator, and, contrary to popular
delusion, it has *never* had the will to be one."

ICANN accomplishes, by contract, regulatory measures that include:
wholesale price capping, the type of registry (i.e. unsponsored-
unrestricted, unsponsored-restricted, sponsored-restricted), and UDRP
compliance.  ICANN "intends" to do this (by contract) by way of regulating
the number of TLD registries and indeed does - by its own actions - have
such "will" to do so.

I will agree that ICANN "was never intended to be a regulator".
Artificially limiting the number of TLD registries - as ICANN continues to
do - is the act of a regulatory body.  There is no question about this.

"In concrete terms, it doesn't matter what policies ICANN
comes up with -- if a large registry doesn't sign the resulting
contract, the policy is meaningless."

ICANN uses the regulatory action of artificially limiting the number of TLD
registrtes to impose additional regulatory measures that you claim are
merely by way of contract agreement.  Again, ICANN's actions have shown it
has the "will" to be a regulatory body.

Ray

-- 



--
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