Re: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p

[Paul Garrin <pg@name-space.com>]

>William Walsh wrote: 
> Name.space and any of the operators of alternative TLDs have no right to expect
> introduction or prior use rights here.  None.
>[...]

Do you care to back this up with some facts?

> Any proposal which gives "alternative" tld operators advanced standing in this
> process, or any expectation that that they will have any rights to the strings
> they have self declared for themselves, would be patently unfair. It would work
> against those who, unlike yourself, have invested years of working within the
> system to acheive these goals.  You should have no more and no less standing
> than anyone else at the end of this process.
>

Any act by ICANN or others to forclose on existing TLD registry operations
would be patently unfair and even perhaps ILLEGAL, and any attempts to
do so will be challenged if necessary.  ICANN and this process is by CONSENT
and NOT mandated by law. Any and all cooperation within this process is
VOLUNTARY and this process is not necessarily binding.  ICANN has not yet
been given the authority over the ROOT, and possibly may not if it fails in
its mission.  I am participating in this forum in good faith, and beilieve
that the outcome muyst be fair, and at the same time will uphold my company's
rights, and the rights of other EXISTING TLD REGISTRIES to continue operations
and to seek global recognition of the TLDs already in operation.

Name.Space and others, including Mr. Ambler, preceed ICANN, and have rights
in this UNREGULATED industry to be entrepeneurs and to operate independently,
and DO have rights to operate the TLDs that they currently operate.  ICANN
is not a regulatory body by statute, and neither is the DoC.  Any regulatory
measures that emerge from this process are by agreement and not mandated by
law.  If this process fails to come up with a workable consensus, Government
regulation may follow.
 
> Your arguments opposing this view and based only on emotion, and not on the
> facts.  The facts do not support your view, and the courts have even recognized
> that your arguments were invalid.
> 

The decision in the Name.Space v. NSI case was a POLITICAL decision and
NOT a legal one.

In fact, if you read the decision, the court make it clear the NSI's
refusal to deal and grant access to the essential facility (the ROOT)
was in fact ILLEGAL.  The court ruled that NSI's conduct IN THIS CASE
was immunized because it was persuant to a US Government directive.
It goes on to say that such conduct in the past and in the future
is subject to antitrust prosecution.  That includes ICANN or any
other party who may become the recognized operator of the "legacy"
root.

It looks like your emotional willingness to cheer the "loss" kept you
from reading the substance of the decision (did you even read it?) and
realizing the greater implications of the decision, and the fact that
it was an act of PROTECTIONISM by the US Government on behalf of NSI,
and not justice.

The First Amendment argument advanced by Name.Space was acknowledged
by the Court, in that TLDs are protected by the First Amendment, with
reference to the "future" new TLDs which may be "expressive".

http://namespace.org/law/appeal/2ndcir-dec.html

> Any attempt to grandfather "alternative TLDs" into the system will meet with
> staunch opposition, and there is no way that consensus will exist on that point.
> 

By a few paid lobbyists and professional detractors, many of whom
occupy this list, and who have plauged this "process" since its inception.

Paul Garrin
pg@name.space
http://name.space

---------------------------------------------------------
Get Free Private Encrypted Email https://mail.lokmail.net
        Switch to Name.Space: http://namespace.org/switch