Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>]

Hi Bret,

--- Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com> wrote:
> I'm particularly concerned that many of the arguments against the WLS
> focus
> 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." 

Excuse me, but part of ICANN's mission is to promote competition.
Stuart Lynn testified before the US Government that ICANN's major
success has been in the promotion of competition. It is wholly within
ICANN's scope to consider the anticompetitive aspects of proposals, and
their impacts on the marketplace and its participants. Since you're a
lawyer, read:

http://www.icann.org/general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm

and in particular read:

Section C:

"This Agreement promotes the management of the DNS in a manner that
will permit market mechanisms to support competition and consumer
choice in the technical management of the DNS. This competition will
lower costs, promote innovation, and enhance user choice and
satisfaction." (Obviously WLS fails this)

"This Agreement is intended to result in the design, development, and
testing of a private coordinating process that is flexible and able to
move rapidly enough to meet the changing needs of the Internet and of
Internet users. This Agreement is intended to foster the development of
a private sector management system that, as far as possible, reflects a
system of bottom-up management."

With regards to the second paragraph, you're proposing a top-down
system, which is diametrically opposite to the bottom-up consensus
approach required of ICANN. Furthermore:

"Neither Party, either in the DNS Project or in any act related to the
DNS Project, shall act unjustifiably or arbitrarily to injure
particular persons or entities or particular categories of persons or
entities."

ICANN needs to be able to justify things, not put its head in the sand
as you suggest.

> That
> would leave the anti-competition issue to a more appropriate forum --
> a
> court -- where experts, economists and others could weigh in on the
> effects

SnapNames couldn't have written what you said any better. ;) FYI, one
does not need to be an expert in Einstein's Theory of Gravity or have a
Ph.D. in physics to know that jumping off the top of the Empire State
Building will lead to your death when you hit the ground. Similarly, it
is obvious that WLS is anti-competitive. Do you suggest Dotster's Clint
Page or eNom's Paul Stahura were lying when they said that if WLS goes
forward, their expired names services will be out of business? Surely
one expects better from you than "let Verisign do whatever they want,
and force others to sue them". Good for the lawyers, perhaps, but not
policy choices of leaders. ICANN exists to make the tough decisions. If
they can't handle the job, give it to someone who will.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com
--
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