Re: [ga] Re: Antitrust Violations

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Danny be fair warned,
Free legal advice is bad advice!
e

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> First set of comments in reply to Ray's question, with the following set in
> response to John Berryhill:
>
> regarding the comment that "Therefore it is vital that registrars be
> perceived as holding the power to pay the bills." -- I take this to be a
> reference to the fact that the only "power" the registrars enjoy is the power
> of being perceived to be paying for 55% of ICANN's total budget.
>
> In reality, the registrars are aware that ICANN planned to shift payment
> responsibility away from the registrars and into the sole hands of the
> registries from whom collection would be far easier.
>
> Consider these excerpts from the Minutes of the May 4, 2001 Registrar
> Teleconference:
>
> "Concern over fee structure.  Attempting to remove registrars from ICANN
> billing, because certain registrars are not paying.  What registrars are not
> paying?  Under the proposed agreement the registry will be liable to ICANN
> for registrar fee component. Therefore, registry will bear enforcement
> obligations. Arguably registries
> could collect this new fee component upfront instead of in the rears."
> http://www.icann-registrars.org/pdfs/Minutes-teleconference-4-may-2001.PDF
>
> Further comment on this topic was provided in the Stockholm Registrar minutes:
>
> "Rob Hall then provided an update of the ICANN budget committee. He noted
> that the registrar representatives succeeding in maintaining the status quo
> regarding payment terms. There was a push by ICANN to shift payment
> obligations from the registrars to the registry. There was grave concern
> among registrars that this would dilute our voice in the process."
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00034.doc
>
> Registrars like to think that its "their money" that is making these
> payments, even while we all know that it comes directly from the registrant
> registration fees.  They are scared by the prospect that they will lose power
> if all payments are instead collected by the registries.  In such a case they
> could no longer claim any special treatment based upon the fact that they
> allegedly provide ICANN with the bulk of its funding.
>
> ---------------------
>
> John, you should well know that fixing prices is only one element in
> antitrust cases.  I refer you to
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/redir5.htm for other relevant
> considerations.  Contrary to your assumption, Mr. Palage was driving at
> something other than the disconnect to which you have referred -- he was
> specifically commenting on the ERC proposal to grant contracting parties
> voting rights equivalent to the collective remainder of the GNSO
> constituencies.   This would allow registries and registrars effective veto
> power over the proposals put forth by the rest of the community (as the other
> constituencies could never attain the requisite two-thirds vote needed for a
> consensus policy if such a proposal was thwarted by this particular
> self-interested bloc).
>
> --
> 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
--
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