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

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

> Well Ross, we really don't have that option.  We can refuse 
> to participate 
> in the creation of such a document, but if we refuse to follow an 
> established CoC (and who knows for sure how it gets 
> established) then we 
> could be in violation of our ICANN agreement.

Assuming that it gets adopted. Is it even remotely realistic to assume
that a policy document rooted in anti-trust violations is going to make
it as far as "consensus policy"? Highly doubtful.



                       -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: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@registrationtek.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:31 PM
> To: ross@tucows.com
> Cc: 'Rick Wesson'; 'Registrars List'
> Subject: RE: [registrars] Code of conduct & anti-trust issues
> 
> 
> Well Ross, we really don't have that option.  We can refuse 
> to participate 
> in the creation of such a document, but if we refuse to follow an 
> established CoC (and who knows for sure how it gets 
> established) then we 
> could be in violation of our ICANN agreement.
> 
> Jim
> 
> --On Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:25 PM -0400 "Ross Wm. Rader" 
> <ross@tucows.com> wrote:
> 
> >> 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
> >>
> 
>