Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

Hi Kent,

> So you forsee us going through the same long
> painful process we just 
> went through with NSI as soon as we have another large registry -- 
> without the factor of having the USG involved?

ICANN is not a privatized version of a government
regulatory body with the authority to pre-ordain
markets and regulate the conduct of those participating
in them.

What you are proposing is indeed far further than any
contemporary government regulatory body would do - even 
in a traditionally highly regulated field.  

ICANN's only legitimate role is a very narrow, technical 
administrative one of establishing some consensual 
agreements regarding technical requirements for market
entry. 

> I think you have it backwards, Tony -- *not*
> doing it would be bad 
> for ICANN's health - .  What you call a "fixed far-reaching,
> obligatory 
> model" I would call "a level playing
> field".

The issue is not what you and I want.  It is what
is within the scope of permissible lawful action
by an ICANN like organization, and what will pass
muster before a competent judicial body.  It is
not the business of ICANN to play a monopoly role
in managing competition within an unregulated
private enhanced services provisioning sector.

If ICANN does this, its existence will be short-lived
under our existing system of law.


--tony