Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1437
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Wednesday, September 25 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1437

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 04:14:20 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Antitrust Violations

John and all assembly members,

John Berryhill wrote:

> >
> > A collusion on the part of registrars with registries to not
> > allow certain
> > proposals to become policy is assuredly an antitrust violation,
>
> No.  Fixing prices among competitors is an antitrust violation.  Are you
> saying that every lobbying organization in Washington is engaged in
> anticompetitive collusion?

  I believe this is what Danny is concluding, yes.  The question remains
is, is he right?  Perhaps and than again Perhaps not..

> When the automobile manufacturers pool their
> lobbying efforts to dissuade Congress from raising fuel efficiency
> standards, they are not violating anti-trust law.

  Apples and oranges here to a degree John.  Pardon me but making such
a comparison may or may not be valid.  Anti-trust law as it applies
to the internet is not anywhere near as well developed and in the
auto industry which you use in your example here.  Hence the
comparison, although may have some merit, still has some
significant differences.

> Business associations,
> professional societies, and standards organizations all involve cooperative
> efforts among economic competitors to regulate practices and policies.  They
> are not colluding to fix prices.

  Depends on what those competitors are regulating or practicing as to
a particular policy, and whom and in what way those policies effect.
Price fixing is far different from letting the market determine the price,
for instance.

>
>
> One of the things I believe Mr. Palage was driving at was the disconnect
> between the standard domain registration contract terms required in the
> registrar accreditation agreement, which assumes a registrar-registrant
> relationship, and the practice among some up and coming registrars of
> building a business model around a registrar-reseller-registrant
> relationship.  However, putting specific words into his mouth on the basis
> of abbreviated minutes which he may not have read or approved is hardly
> fair.

  Agreed here.  Nice read!  >;)

>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 06:04:43 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Danny:

I have known you for a long time and it would have been much better for your
to ask me these questions privately as I could have easily clarified your
misconceptions. First I think you have been drinking some of the Business
Constituency Kool Aid. Specifically I am referring to a recent post by a
Business Constituency member that has referred to the Registrar and Registry
Constituencies as "mafia". Sorry, Philip and Marilyn but I still cannot
agree that all is well and good within the Business Constituency.

Regarding the minutes, I will talk to Tim the registrar constituency
secretariat about the minutes and ask him to clarify the minutes to remove
any confusion that might exist. For the record Tim, Ken Stubbs and I sat at
the head table on the stage in front of the meeting. During the all day
meeting which was open to the public (as usual and unlike certain other
constituencies) there were some slow points during which both Tim and I
played competing games of minesweeper, at least Bill Gates knows how to
build in entertaining features into his OS. Now I know how the ICANN Board
Directors must be able to make it through the meetings. Unfortunately we did
not have a wireless Internet connection as it was not within our budget.

Although I am an attorney I do not claim to be an anti-trust expert,
however, I have always taken seriously potential anti-trust concerns. This
was why during our Dulles meeting in February we had an anti-trust attorney
speak to us. A handy rule that she provided us to stay away from anti-trust
concerns was more stuff, better stuff and cheaper stuff. However, my
personal favorite reference can be found on
http://www.antitrust.org/aei/Guidelines.htm.

Turning to what was said. The morning session dealt with ICANN reform. The
Registrars have vehemently argued in the past that they must continue to
retain the contractual obligations to pay ICANN directly and approve ICANN's
annual budget. I have also advocated the current 50/50 voting split in the
proposed GNSO as a mechanism to protect contracting parties interests within
ICANN. Although others seek to distort this mechanism as a sword, I believe
it is merely a shield. Another positive mechanism in the GNSO proposal that
I discussed was the requirement that ICANN's general counsel approve
something as policy prior to the new GNSO body undertaken the investment of
time and resources. This is what I call the Marilyn Cade safeguard, as
Marilyn always seems to have a way of taking a round peg and making it fit
into a square hole. I believe Marilyn Cade was successful in an earlier ERC
working group incorporating a veto provision into the GNSO process whereby
they could still take up an issue even if ICANN said it was not policy.

The events of the last past year also show the fundamental flaws in your
logic. If you look at the hotly debated topics of the last year WLS and
transfers, the registrar and registry contracting parties have not been on
the same side of the fence. In fact they have generally been diametrically
opposed. The purpose of registrars retaining the current contractual
provisions in the agreements was viewed as one of the most effective ways to
ensure that ICANN continues to act (grow) in a responsible manner. Best the
increase of ICANN fees to registrars domain name registration fees continue
to drop. Although certain people like to view the registrars and registry as
mere tax collectors, the misconception ignores reality. When a registrant
obtains a multi-year registration that service is provided regardless of any
increased ICANN fees that might be imposed upon the registrar. If we were
truly tax collector we would be going back to the registrant and asking for
additional funds which does not happen. One of the things that is
interesting to note that despite the increase in ICANN's fees to registrars
prices for domain names continue to fall, and the services offered to
registrants continue to increase. In summary, more stuff, better stuff and
cheaper stuff.

The specific example that I referenced during this discussion regarded a
hypothetical policy mandate that all ICANN accredited registrars be required
to retain actual proof of payment terms by the end registrant. This question
was in part based upon certain discussions that registrars and registries
had with FTC, DOC, SEC, IRS while in Washington the day before. Certain
Registrar business models (TUCOWS, Bulk, ENom) rely on a diverse reseller
network which has this payment information residing with the reseller. These
registrars generally only have payment terms and information regarding the
reseller/channel partner, not the end registrant. The point I was trying to
make is that the current DNSO Names Council and the proposed GNSO body to a
large degree does not have the ability to understand the various nuisances
that exist within the domain name registration business, and that there is a
danger when grossly unrepresentative constituencies attempt to micromanage
or impose their viewpoints without understanding the basics.

Time to head back to bed a catch a hour of sleep. Funny I was enjoying a
nice good night sleep when my ICANN Spider Senses kicked in, and somehow
drew me to my computer. Hopefully this email will put this issue to rest,
but knowing this list I doubt it. In fact, I was not even going to response,
but I take allegations with potential criminal implications serious.
Although there will never be a shortage of ICANN nay Sayers (including
myself at times) the fact remains there does not exist a better mechanism in
place to resolve global diverse and complex issues. For the record, I
respectfully disagree with Tim's paraphrase of my discussion regarding ICANN
reform and I did not approve the minutes prior to their posting.

Best regards,

Mike

P.S. For those conspiracy theorist, Amadeau an ICANN Board director was also
in attendance. Was he using a secret Vulcan mind meld to influence the
discussion? No, but it does make for good fiction.

P.P.S. Marilyn I have saved you the trouble and forwarded a copy of this
email to NTIA :-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 12:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Antitrust Violations

The registrar constituency recently held a meeting in Amsterdam.  By
definition such a meeting is a collaboration of competitors which per se is
not a violation of antitrust law.  However, if such a meeting results in the
collusion among parties to an agreement to reduce services below what would
likely prevail in the absence of the relevant agreement, this would
constitute a violation of the "Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among
Competitors" issued by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department
of Justice, and might well be actionable.

The minutes of this meeting (posted on the registrars' website) contain the
following statement:

"Palage: Current ICANN structure allows some people to have influence over
how we conduct our business. Nothing prevents the IP or other constituency
from framing rules that make impossible a diverse reseller network. Several
slippery slopes we are looking at. Therefore it is vital that registrars be
perceived as holding the power to pay the bills. Registries and registrars
have not seen eye to eye on many issues. However, contracting parties can
agree to have certain proposals not become policy."

A collusion on the part of registrars with registries to not allow certain
proposals to become policy is assuredly an antitrust violation, as without
such collusion such proposals might well result in enhanced Community
services.  I would like to give Michael Palage an opportunity to discuss
this
matter in depth before it becomes necessary to take further action.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 06:48:32 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Dear Dr. Froomkin,

I am only a mild speed reader but it would seem to me that your analysis
misses an important point.

Concessionaires.  If indeed the US Gov can give license to a private
enterprise to exploit a national resource such as the Internet then they
are doing no different then when they allow lumber companies of federal
land,  cattle ranchers of federal leased land and tour operators in
federal parks.
There is plethora of law in this area.  One of the keys is annual
bidding and multiple concessionaires.
Somewhere at sometime someone got confused and decided that this
internet thing was different.  Probably because they were ignorant.
1. If it is a USG resource then it should be managed by the BLM.
2. If it is not a USG resource then DoC should stay the hell away from
it as it violates international treaties to interfere with international
rights.
3. ccTLDs that have it together regard their internet as a national
resource and treat it accordingly, exploitation versus security and
conservation being the watchwords.

So for all of your treatise you must first answer a question and make a
statement of thesis;
Is the Internet as we use it a USG resource or not?
If it is not then ICANN is nonsensical
If it is then ICANN is obliged to follow the rules of using a USG
resource, which I own a part of.

(just another way of looking at it)
e

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:50:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Sorry, but if you read the paper you will see that we deal with various
forms of government-derived immunity in some detail, and reject them for
good and sufficient reasons.

The people we suggest have the most risk are **registrars** and those who
make agreements with them (e.g. ICANN).  

For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
in.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Dr. Froomkin,
> 
> I am only a mild speed reader but it would seem to me that your analysis
> misses an important point.
> 
> Concessionaires.  If indeed the US Gov can give license to a private
> enterprise to exploit a national resource such as the Internet then they
> are doing no different then when they allow lumber companies of federal
> land,  cattle ranchers of federal leased land and tour operators in
> federal parks.
> There is plethora of law in this area.  One of the keys is annual
> bidding and multiple concessionaires.
> Somewhere at sometime someone got confused and decided that this
> internet thing was different.  Probably because they were ignorant.
> 1. If it is a USG resource then it should be managed by the BLM.
> 2. If it is not a USG resource then DoC should stay the hell away from
> it as it violates international treaties to interfere with international
> rights.
> 3. ccTLDs that have it together regard their internet as a national
> resource and treat it accordingly, exploitation versus security and
> conservation being the watchwords.
> 
> So for all of your treatise you must first answer a question and make a
> statement of thesis;
> Is the Internet as we use it a USG resource or not?
> If it is not then ICANN is nonsensical
> If it is then ICANN is obliged to follow the rules of using a USG
> resource, which I own a part of.
> 
> (just another way of looking at it)
> e
> 
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> 
> > http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf
> >
> > --
> >                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> > A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> > U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> > +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
> >                       -->It's very hot here.<--
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:06:37 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Thanks for this reminder Michael.

I believe when you look at the actions of the Registrar Constituency they
actual serve as a potential safeguard to the potential problems you raise in
your article, i.e. ICANN imposing questionable policy as an unchecked
regulator. The Registrar Constituency is only looking for proper
representation to prevent questionable policies from being imposed on
contracting parties without proper consensus outreach and documentation.
Although I have not agreed with every Board decision to date, I believe they
have gotten it right more often than not. But this safeguard alone is not
enough IMHO.

I believe that it is critical that the ERC include a safeguard mechanism to
prevent policies from being introduced to the GNSO that have no right of
being there in the first place. Moreover, I do not agree with the proposed
veto mechanism to over ride ICANN's recommendation on whether something is
or is not policy. These mechanisms if properly enforced keep ICANN focused
on its core mission and prevent it from expending resources chasing policy
ghosts. The key goal for ICANN must be achieving the benchmarks set forth in
the recent MoU. If ICANN fails to meet these goals, the sandbox which so
many like to play simply goes away, in which case most of us lose.

Finally, as I told the registrar constituency in Amsterdam, there is nothing
preventing ICANN from modifying our contracts to remove the 66% budget
approval or requiring the registries to collect our fees. If at large
elections fell by the way side what absolute power do we really have? The
choice is simple, work constructively within the current/proposed ICANN
structure to make the ICANN process work, or sit on the side line and be a
stick in the mud and lose our voice in the process. I personally find little
or no honor in being a martyr. As long as I continue to serve as the chair
of the ICANN registrar constituency I will continue to work with all
stakeholders to make the ICANN process work, because I have yet to see a
viable alternative.

Mike

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Michael
Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 8:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf

- --
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 07:20:07 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Wow,

For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize the subject of the
enterprise?
Steel, Microsoft, cars, Bar Associations, Telephone companies, Utility
companies, hardware stores, and stock traders and satellites, telegraphs and
railroads and baseball are all handled the same?
Wow!  Damn those Roosevelts, they sure fooled me.  Oh and that guy Cordoza,
and Brandeis and Marshall, shoot they were just playing.  Do you have a
correspondence course so I could learn more of this revisionist history
lesson?  I did not notice that common law and civil law through out precedence
when the Internet was established.
Come on, whether the internet is a USG resource, a commodity or a service and
whether it is vital to national and international security and whether it will
work without consolidation are  the core questions, you ivory tower guys just
avoid it.  Why not define it?
e

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> <much snippage>
> For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
> only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
> this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
> in.
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 10:24:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

if the participants are in the US and are participants in a "market" and
they are not acting at the goverment's direction, and they engage in
concerted action to contraol the market in a way that restrains
competition and if a small number of exceptions don't apply, then they are
violating section 1 of the Sherman Act.

I suggest you try reading the paper.

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Wow,
> 
> For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize the subject of the
> enterprise?
> Steel, Microsoft, cars, Bar Associations, Telephone companies, Utility
> companies, hardware stores, and stock traders and satellites, telegraphs and
> railroads and baseball are all handled the same?
> Wow!  Damn those Roosevelts, they sure fooled me.  Oh and that guy Cordoza,
> and Brandeis and Marshall, shoot they were just playing.  Do you have a
> correspondence course so I could learn more of this revisionist history
> lesson?  I did not notice that common law and civil law through out precedence
> when the Internet was established.
> Come on, whether the internet is a USG resource, a commodity or a service and
> whether it is vital to national and international security and whether it will
> work without consolidation are  the core questions, you ivory tower guys just
> avoid it.  Why not define it?
> e
> 
> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> 
> > <much snippage>
> > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
> > only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
> > this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
> > in.
> >
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                      -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:52:45 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Wrong again,

This is the same kind of thing that caused derision in the at-large group.

I am sure that what you meant to say was;

"and if someone complains and a government prosecutor decides it is expedient both
politically and legally, then and only then will a participant be charged with a
violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act and then only if it is not in direct
conflict with national interests and there is funding to support it, and then a duly
organized and appropriate court my determine a violation of the Sherman Act"

The discrepancy between real life and Ivory Tower proclamations of Law are huge.
Trademark law application on a day to day basis, pragmatics and economics are
completely different than hypotheticals.
Antitrust enforcement has almost always been a political and economic with the legal
justification being an after the fact justification.

I ran a little search and the most often quoted source was none other than the
author.

Great for a course syllabus but lacking in business practice.

e

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> if the participants are in the US and are participants in a "market" and
> they are not acting at the goverment's direction, and they engage in
> concerted action to contraol the market in a way that restrains
> competition and if a small number of exceptions don't apply, then they are
> violating section 1 of the Sherman Act.
>
> I suggest you try reading the paper.
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Wow,
> >
> > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize the subject of the
> > enterprise?
> > Steel, Microsoft, cars, Bar Associations, Telephone companies, Utility
> > companies, hardware stores, and stock traders and satellites, telegraphs and
> > railroads and baseball are all handled the same?
> > Wow!  Damn those Roosevelts, they sure fooled me.  Oh and that guy Cordoza,
> > and Brandeis and Marshall, shoot they were just playing.  Do you have a
> > correspondence course so I could learn more of this revisionist history
> > lesson?  I did not notice that common law and civil law through out precedence
> > when the Internet was established.
> > Come on, whether the internet is a USG resource, a commodity or a service and
> > whether it is vital to national and international security and whether it will
> > work without consolidation are  the core questions, you ivory tower guys just
> > avoid it.  Why not define it?
> > e
> >
> > "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
> >
> > > <much snippage>
> > > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
> > > only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
> > > this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
> > > in.
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                       -->It's very hot here.<--
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:19:06 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

That looks very much like WLS to me.

Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 9:24:51 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <[email-masked]> wrote:
MFUMSoL> if the participants are in the US and are participants in a "market" and
MFUMSoL> they are not acting at the goverment's direction, and they engage in
MFUMSoL> concerted action to contraol the market in a way that restrains
MFUMSoL> competition and if a small number of exceptions don't apply, then they are
MFUMSoL> violating section 1 of the Sherman Act.

MFUMSoL> I suggest you try reading the paper.

MFUMSoL> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

>> Wow,
>> 
>> For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize the subject of the
>> enterprise?
>> Steel, Microsoft, cars, Bar Associations, Telephone companies, Utility
>> companies, hardware stores, and stock traders and satellites, telegraphs and
>> railroads and baseball are all handled the same?
>> Wow!  Damn those Roosevelts, they sure fooled me.  Oh and that guy Cordoza,
>> and Brandeis and Marshall, shoot they were just playing.  Do you have a
>> correspondence course so I could learn more of this revisionist history
>> lesson?  I did not notice that common law and civil law through out precedence
>> when the Internet was established.
>> Come on, whether the internet is a USG resource, a commodity or a service and
>> whether it is vital to national and international security and whether it will
>> work without consolidation are  the core questions, you ivory tower guys just
>> avoid it.  Why not define it?
>> e
>> 
>> "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:
>> 
>> > <much snippage>
>> > For US anti-trust law it matters not how you characterize "the Internet",
>> > only how you characterize various relationships among the parties, so for
>> > this purpose we don't need to get into the deep waters you wish us to swim
>> > in.
>> >
>> 
>> 

- ----
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA     Internet Concepts, Inc.
[email-masked]         http://www.inetconcepts.net
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55              (972) 788-2364  Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
- ----

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:53:12 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A new model

Michael,

Thank you for your comments and clarification.  I can well appreciate your 
argument that the "there is a danger when grossly unrepresentative 
constituencies attempt to micromanage or impose their viewpoints without 
understanding the basics."  For several years now, the General Assembly has 
served as a vehicle to facilitate such understanding, but as a tool it 
remains largely unused by most Names Council members that have collectively 
decided to forego the benefits of cross-constituency debate, discourse and 
edification.

I had occasion last night to reflect upon Rick Wesson's comments regarding 
the failure of the constituency system.  Ultimately a constituency model can 
only work if there is a facile add/delete/modify mechanism associated with 
it.  Some constituencies are so small and inactive that they rightfully 
should be retired.  The NCDNHC, for example, has only two dozen paying member 
organizations, is more than $30,000 in debt to the DNSO and hasn't updated 
its website in more than half a year; list discussion is virtually 
non-existent.  The ISPs haven't updated their own site in more than a year 
and resist the prospect of additional task forces because they have no 
members that will come forward to participate in any new TFs; they also have 
no discussion list.  The BC hides their lack of member participation behind 
the artifice of a non-archived list, and the IPC didn't even notice that its 
own archives have been down for more than two and a half months (and no more 
than a half dozen members ever discuss anything on that list anyway).  

As it stands, we have no manner by which we can "delete" these constituencies 
nor hold them accountable to certain minimum standards to justify their 
continued involvement.  Neither do we have criteria in place to allow for the 
establishment of provisional constituencies.  Complicating matters is the 
registry/registrar position to refuse to approve ICANN funding for DNSO 
Secretariat services which creates a severe financial burden for others that 
seek to enter into the fold.  Rick happens to be right.  The constituency 
model hasn't worked, and it's not going to work.

The ERC proposal only makes a bad situation worse by perpetuating this 
seriously flawed model, and by continuing to deny representation and voting 
rights to the single largest, most involved, knowledgeable and active 
constituency in the ICANN process -- the membership of the General Assembly.

The minutes of your Amsterdam meeting make it clear that the registries seek 
to form a Contracting Parties Supporting Organization so that the views of 
your respective members can flow unfiltered to the Board without the prospect 
of being mangled/filtered by the current DNSO process.  There is merit in 
that proposal.  This would force the remaining constituencies and the 
non-constituency members of the GA to re-organize into a Registrants 
Supporting Organization which might then allow for the establishment of new 
criteria to guage the actual viability of those that seek to join the new SO. 

What is the current view of the registrars regarding the desirability of 
forming such a contracting parties SO?  If the registrars are willing to 
adopt this proposal, it might bode well for ICANN as a whole.

 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 22:07:09 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] A new model

On 2002-09-25 13:53:12 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>The ERC proposal only makes a bad situation worse by perpetuating 
>this seriously flawed model,

The ERC's proposal takes away the need to preserve a perceived  
balance by keeping the same number of constituencies by  
_guaranteeing_ that balance.  In fact, it may be easier to add new  
constituencies with the ERC model than with the current one.

(It _may_ be easier.  We don't know before someone tries it.)
- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:13:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: "...more stuff, better stuff and cheaper stuff..."

Jim and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  Excellent and accurate response here Jim.  Well done indeed!
I would only say that only the fools are fooled, and the foolers
luv to fool the fools...  As P.T Barnum once said, "a fool and his
money soon part company"...  Perhaps that applies indirectly here...

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc11/msg00699.html
> From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
> "A handy rule that she provided us to stay away from anti-trust
> concerns was more stuff, better stuff and cheaper stuff. However, my
> personal favorite reference can be found on
> http://www.antitrust.org/aei/Guidelines.htm.
> ================================================
>
> Prior to ICANN, there were MORE Registrars.....ISPs, webmasters and even lawyers
> simply accessed the DNS Registry (and the whois) via various interfaces. All they are or
> were doing is making entries in a database. It is not rocket science. Note, many companies
> (see below) do the same thing for FREE, and they do it in real-time, and users see the
> results within seconds. They are not tied up in mountains of red-tape and legal agreements
> and disputes resulting from a system designed to INCREASE disputes to pay attorneys to
> resolve the disputes. No one is fooled.
>
> Via Registrar "licensing" (accreditation), ICANN caused LESS Registrars to have direct
> access to the Registry. This of course helped the Registry, increased the Registry's revenue
> and most importantly created a layer of brokers that now sing the praises of the I* society
> which has made them very wealthy for doing almost nothing. No one is fooled.
> http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=com
>
> That wealth can of course only be preserved if there is no competition allowed. While
> http://www.New.Net and other pioneers create MORE, the I* society advocates for LESS
> or the same. Sure, some token TLDs were tossed out to make it look like more, but most
> of those have been a fiasco and the revenue has been carefully maintained in the hands of
> the cartel members. The companies with the TLDs ready to go in 1998, were pushed aside.
> Those were the companies that trusted the U.S. Government when they said they would
> solve the problem, in a few months. Years later, it is worse not better. No one is fooled.
>
> Of course, while most of the world is distracted with names debates, the real story continues
> with the I* society control of the address space. Via the IN-ADDR.ARPA domain registrations,
> ISPs are locked into using the U.S. Government controlled servers. The DOD and other agencies
> maintain tight control of this valuable cyberspace and the I* society insiders lease pieces of it.
> What should be a totally automated system, now has dozens of people involved in making
> subjective decisions and making sure that only the insiders and the "right people" benefit from
> the artificially scarce resource. No one is fooled.
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html
>
> Fortunately, people can just route around it all...because **some people** have worked to
> provide...."...more stuff, better stuff and cheaper stuff..."
>
> Vote Early and Often...
> http://www.kvtek.com/ddnsservices.asp
>
> 128-bit DNS AAAA Record Flag Day Formats
> 2002:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
> [YMDD]:[IPv4]:[SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT]:[64-bit IPv8 or IPv16 Persistent Address]
> 1-bit to set the Reserved/Spare ("SNOOPY") bit in Fragment Offset [S]
> 1-bit to set the Don't Fragment (DF) bit [D]
> 2-bits to select 1 of 4 common TTL values (255, 128, 32, 8) [LL]
> 1-bit for Options Control [O]
> 7-bits to set the Identification Field(dst) [FFFFFFF]
> 4-bits to set the TOS(dst) Field [TTTT]
> Default SDLL.OFFF.FFFF.TTTT = 0000.0000.0000.0000
> FFF.FFFF.TTTT = GGG.SSSS.SSSS
>
> Jim Fleming
> 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer...
> http://www.netfilter.org/
> http://www.analogx.com/contents/dnsdig.htm
> http://ipv8.dyndns.tv
> http://ipv8.yi.org
> http://ipv8.dyns.cx
> http://ipv8.no-ip.com
> http://ipv8.no-ip.org
> http://ipv8.no-ip.biz
> http://ipv8.no-ip.info
> http://ipv8.myip.us
> http://ipv8.dyn.ee
> http://ipv8.community.net.au
> http://ipv8.ods.org

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1437
*************************