RE: [registrars] Code of conduct & anti-trust issues

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

> it looks like you are just jumping to conclusions. If you 
> provide some documentation to backup your belief it would be 
> welcome by all.

As with all things of this nature, it is the responsibility of each
constituency member to retain legal counsel and have them advise you of
your risks. Its been my experience that this is much more effective than
letting your competitors tell you what "is legal" and what isn't.

If this exercise constitutes a potential breach of anti-trust law in
your jurisdiction, according to your legal counsel, then simply don't
participate.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Rick Wesson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:12 PM
> To: Jim Archer
> Cc: Registrars List
> Subject: Re: [registrars] Code of conduct & anti-trust issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim,
> 
> ICANN has made provisions for us to be bound by a CoC, and 
> before you say that developing such a document is an 
> "anti-competitive activity" would would mind showing us how 
> its illegal and/or anti-competitive.
> 
> it looks like you are just jumping to conclusions. If you 
> provide some documentation to backup your belief it would be 
> welcome by all.
> 
> thanks
> 
> -rick
> 
> > ICANN does not require that we adopt a CoC and even if the contract 
> > did ICANN can not enforce a provision that requires us to engage in 
> > anti-competitive activity.  If we adopt a CoC and it is 
> ilegal yto do 
> > so then it won't be ICANN who is called on the carpet, it 
> will be any 
> > member of the RC who participates in discussions on CoC.
> >
> > Jim
>