Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

One of the things ICANN was charged with by the USG was the
introduction and protection of competitiveness in the domain name
market.

It is clearly something that ICANN MUST address when reviewing these
types of policies.

Thursday, July 11, 2002, 8:37:44 AM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> I've been following the debate on the proposed waiting list service for some
> time, and while I initially thought it was a good idea, I've come to see
> that both side have compelling arguments as to why the service should/should
> not be allowed. Aside from the merits of the service itself, this debate is
> particularly important, at least in my mind, because it stands to set some
> precedent for how future issues of registry services are resolved. With that
> point in mind, it seems to me that it would be better for ICANN to look for
> some bright-line approach so that resolution of similar issues in the future
> doesn't require the same machinations required to reach this point in the
> WLS debate.  

> 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." Surely even
> those registrars who most oppose the WLS appreciate the danger in creating
> an ICANN that becomes a market regulator.

> Here's where I'm going with all this. If the WLS is anticompetitive, why is
> it not preferable to have ICANN take no position on the WLS? Verisign is
> free to implement the WLS, but if the service is anticompetitive, Verisign
> runs the substantial risk that the registrars will file a lawsuit. 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
> of the service. 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. (And we should ensure that the registrar
> accreditation contracts don't require the registrars to waive any private
> law remedies they may have for a registry's anticompetitive acts.)

> This strikes me as a better approach for ICANN as a whole, but I wanted to
> float it here so people could help me think it through. I don't have time
> today to do a lot of follows up, but I'll look forward to reading any
> responses this evening.

>     -- Bret

> --
> 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





-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Save Internet Radio!  
CARP will kill Webcasting!
http://www.saveinternetradio.org/


--
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