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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
You certainly are right about the defnition of the problem. But you
have a strange description of the solution given. You say that the
standard model was accepted. I hardly see how the ICANN can be
compared - structurally wise - with the ISO?

I wish it would. It is all the difference between us.
Take care.
Jefsey



On 18:28 11/01/01, Kent Crispin said:
>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

--
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