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

["Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>]

May I be so bold as to turn this thread back to where I believe it should
head.
Clearly ICANN is operating in a monopolistic anti-trust type of environment.
Clearly that is why it is important for it to move in the direction of a more
bottom up, consensus oriented approach which includes those netizens who
would be the victim if they are not adequately represented in ICANN.
You see if the monopoly really does represent all of it's customers in a fair
and equitable fashion no one complains and everyone wants to participate in
their monopoly.

Sincerely,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 04:40:01PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Now we have Kent Crispin, antitrust law expert!
>
> No, we have Milton Mueller, being an expert jerk.
>
> I am certainly not an anti-trust law expert.  But, interestingly enough,
> Joe Sims, ICANN's outside counsel, is.
>
> 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.
>
> Without ICANN (or some similar agent -- perhaps a government), the
> registries would have to manage the central allocation of these
> resources themselves, which would make THEM the object of anti-trust
> scrutiny (or at least increase the level of scrutiny).
>
> IF (and I say "if") ICANN convinces government anti-trust authorities
> that it's management of these resources passes muster from an
> anti-trust point of view, then the registries don't have to worry about
> it -- or at least their worries are lessened.  This off-loading of
> worry is a service that ICANN potentially provides to registries; and
> it is this service that I fancifully called an "anti-trust product".
>
> > It's pretty humorous,
> > but way too off-topic to pursue.  I would encourage others on this list
> > to discount what he has to say on the topic pretty thoroughly.  Just
> > let's say the concept of a private corporation selling an "anti-trust
> > shield product" without any special exemption from government
> > would...uh...raise a few eyebrows at the Justice Department.
>
> Obviously you can't recognize a metaphor when you see it.  In any case,
> Joe Sims worked at the Justice Department...
>
> --
> 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

Emanuel.exe