Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 11:34:51AM -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> 
> >In the recent round of discussion, the REASON that doing a not-for-profit 
> >first was stated simply and directly.
> 
> Sure, it is called restraining the market, and very appealing
> to socialists and those who would benefit by manipulating the
> market to their advantage.

An anti-trust lawyer of significant reputation that I know says that 
this is not an issue :-) -- there are indeed pitfalls, but they can be 
easily avoided.  

> >Care to provide the reason(s) that a for-profit is "safer"?
> 
> Significantly less liability for the corporation and the
> participants

You, of course, are not an anti-trust specialist.  As you know, 
however, ICANN has very significant expertise in this area available 
to it.

> - which raises the question of whether ICANN's
> liability coverage extends to Working Group participants, and
> for what amount.

That's interesting.  So, in a bit of poetic justice, a lawsuit
directed against wg-c participants would have as defendants you,
Chris Ambler, Roeland Meyer, Milton Mueller, and a host of others
besides the evil communists and socialists you rail against. 

And given the number of lawyers on this list, some from major law
firms, it would indeed be a most interesting case to watch.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain