[ga] Antitrust Violations

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

The registrar constituency recently held a meeting in Amsterdam.  By 
definition such a meeting is a collaboration of competitors which per se is 
not a violation of antitrust law.  However, if such a meeting results in the 
collusion among parties to an agreement to reduce services below what would 
likely prevail in the absence of the relevant agreement, this would 
constitute a violation of the "Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among 
Competitors" issued by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department 
of Justice, and might well be actionable.

The minutes of this meeting (posted on the registrars' website) contain the 
following statement:

"Palage: Current ICANN structure allows some people to have influence over 
how we conduct our business. Nothing prevents the IP or other constituency 
from framing rules that make impossible a diverse reseller network. Several 
slippery slopes we are looking at. Therefore it is vital that registrars be 
perceived as holding the power to pay the bills. Registries and registrars 
have not seen eye to eye on many issues. However, contracting parties can 
agree to have certain proposals not become policy." 

A collusion on the part of registrars with registries to not allow certain 
proposals to become policy is assuredly an antitrust violation, as without 
such collusion such proposals might well result in enhanced Community 
services.  I would like to give Michael Palage an opportunity to discuss this 
matter in depth before it becomes necessary to take further action.






--
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