Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

Mr. Crispin,
 This is a very nice insight into the truth of the monopoly matter.  But it is
also true that it will only continue to exist if it does not cause a problem
that anti-trust laws are designed to prohibit. ICANN is doing that right now
and if it does not get fixed from the inside I am certain it will get fixed
from the outside. So we had better get busy and get the people or entities
affected by ICANN into the decision making process.

Sincerely,


Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:54:29AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > >From the White Paper:
> >
> > "Comments: Several commenters suggested that the U.S.  Government
> > should provide full antitrust immunity or indemnification for the new
> > corporation.  Others noted that potential antitrust liability would
> > provide an important safeguard against institutional inflexibility and
> > abuses of power.
> >
> > Response: Applicable antitrust law will provide accountability to and
> > protection for the international Internet community.  Legal challenges
> > and lawsuits can be expected within the normal course of business for
> > any enterprise and the new corporation should anticipate this reality."
> >
> > Case closed.
>
> Yes, indeed.  Thank you for agreeing with me at last: it is indeed
> anti-trust authoritities that ultimately provide oversight over ICANN.
> No special laws are needed; ICANN is a monopoly, and can only exist if
> it is structured in a way that satisfies the normal legal requirements
> of anti-trust authorities.  There are several relatively common legal
> structures that have been proposed -- the most popular being the
> "standards body" model.  (Standards bodies collude to produce standards
> that may have worldwide force; they could be considered a species of
> monopoly, but anti-trust authorities recognize them as benign, and
> don't hassle them.)  The expertise of a lawyer of the caliber of Joe
> Sims was retained to be sure that ICANN fell within the rules that
> satisfy anti-trust authorities.
>
> Thank you once again for agreeing at last.
>
> >
> > >>> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> 01/10/01 08:11PM >>>
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:40:01PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > It is the case that a primary legal concern (perhaps THE primary legal
> > concern) in the formation of ICANN was how to avoid anti-trust action --
> > if things went as envisioned, ICANN would be the single controller for
> > access to two unique resources -- the central root dns registry, and the
> > central IP address registry.  This is a pure monopoly.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
begin:vcard 
n:Dierker;Eric
tel;fax:(858) 571-8497
tel;work:(858) 571-8431
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:Eric@Hi-Tek.com
end:vcard