Re: [ga] Re: Antitrust Violations

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Danny,

You can make things better.

I've watched your posts over the last few weeks; your doing your research
but still coming up empty.

Might I suggest you start posting proposals along with your commentary so
that we can evaluate your insiteful comments with a method to a better
place/way/procedure.

everyone can point fingers, make accusations and spread FUD, those that
can do the "real work" of developing proposals, and moving them through
some consensus development process are the folks that should be
encouraged.

whom do you want to be?

-rick


On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 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@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