Antitrust (Was:Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder)

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

>>>> "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com> 08/18/99 07:17PM >>>
wrote:

{snip}
>
>If you add even a single new TLD, then any entity willing to abide
>by the terms of that addition should be allowed to have a TLD added
>for them as well. To do otherwise would almost certainly be some
>form of restrained trade, and most probably an antitrust violation.
>
>ICANN is a U.S. entity and specifically liable for antitrust issues.
>
>We either find a way to do this right, and not impose arbitrary limits
>other than operational pacing, or we give up and add none.
>
>Alas, if we add none, then we're back into an antitrust position
>again for ICANN.
>
>Do it slowly, steady, and fairly.
>
>Christopher
>
>

(1) I do not think it appropriate for participants in this discussion to bandy about threats of litigation.  This is particularly true where the bandier has demonstrated propensity for filing litigation whose merits have been, to be kind, stretched.

(2) Any recommendation this WG makes will be vetted by another WG charged with antitrust concerns, as wel as by ICANN's corporate counsel.  This WG should make its recommendation(s) irrespective of antitrust concerns.

KJC

**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************