Re: [wg-c] The legal status of registries

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

Hi John,

> Erm, isn't that just a nice and fancy way
> using big words to say exactly
> what I said? Your "common carrier regulatory" model, basically
> means
> oversight from ICANN. The model that "allows anyone meeting
> minimal
> technical criteria" is a FCFS model.

Yup.  Having spent a number of years trying to extricate the
telecom, CATV, and wireless worlds from common carrier regulatory 
models, it's not exactly a desired model. IMHO

> The view that ccTLDs should be lumped with the
> rest is a minority view at
> this moment. I thought you would have accepted it.

My acceptance isn't relevant.  As Seinfeld would say, you have
a lot of big matzoh balls hanging out there (all those existing 
2, 3 and 4 letter TLDs).  It might be nice to rationalize this
somehow.  Although the Internet loves chaos, legal systems
typically rely on some consistency.

> > >is enough oversight there by the
> general public and by world governments
> > >(particularly by USgov through DoC and NSF) to make sure that
> they 
> > >won't
> >                                 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^ don't think so.
> > How about DOJ?
>
> DOJ is important because it provides a remedial venue, not oversight
> IMO.

Then we have a problem here, Houston.  NSF is clearly out of
the
picture.  DoC doesn't have the authority.  The FCC is
forbearing.
In the final analysis, over some years, it's been the DOJ and
the judicial system that has been the most effective safeguard
against anticompetitive practices.

--tony