Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1439
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST        Thursday, September 26 2002        Volume 01 : Number 1439

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

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 23:46:06 GMT
From: David Farrar <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN and the Representativeness of its Constituencies

Michael Palage wrote:
> Attached please find a pdf document that I am working on in connection with
> an audit regarding the representativeness of each of the ICANN DNSO
> constituencies. Any comments would be welcome.

Ta - a useful document.

Where it is appropriate I would estimate not just the percentage of eligible 
members who are members/active members (30% for registrars) but also what 
percentage of market share they are.  I suspect for registrars it is somewhat 
higher.  This would apply to registries, registrars and ccTLDs.

Just a minor note with the ccTLDs.  Technically the ccTLD managers are the 
members - the registry in each ccTLD may be a different entity (In .nz 
InternetNZ is the manager and a company it owns is the registry).

DPF

- --
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 20:38:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

	It is precisely because Froomkin is not himself an antitrust
expert that he co-authored his article on "ICANN and Antitrust" with Mark
Lemley, who *is* an antitrust expert.
<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=173>
I guarantee that their article is worth careful examination; list members
who read it can make up their own minds as to its merits.  
<http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf>

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that

- --
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 19:40:24 -0500
From: Don Brown <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

Mr. Simms,

Professor Froomkin wasn't giving legal advice. He was presenting a
paper. It is done all the time in the legal and legal/academic
communities and you know that.

College Professors are often mediators, otherwise represent clients
and more than just a little bit involved in the actual, real world
legal process. You know that, also. After all, you did go to law
school, didn't you? Didn't a Professor teach you torts, for instance?

Further, he was not attempting to discredit your legal acumen as you have
attempted to do to him.  He was merely presently a paper, which is
topical.  Can you spell W-L-S?

Therefore, if there was anything "worthless" it is the instant message
below.

Your post, in typical insurance defense counsel's style, adds no
positive value to the conversation and only merits disdain. It is
merely an attempt to lead the less informed up rabbit trails and to
stifle the process of meaningful communication.  You only add to the
cost of the process, which is also typical of insurance defense
counsel.

Your own integrity would have been better served, absent the below
post.  To say it was disingenuous would be understated.

You can fool some of the people some of the time . . .

Thanks,

Wednesday, September 25, 2002, 5:10:00 PM, Joe Sims <[email-masked]> wrote:

JS> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
JS> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
JS> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
JS> concluding that something is an antitrust violation without a clear
JS> understanding of all the facts, considered in the full context of the
JS> environment in which the specific conduct is taking place, is essentially
JS> worthless.  If anyone has any personal or corporate concerns about
JS> antitrust, they should seek competent antitrust counsel; debating these
JS> issues in the abstract is not likely to accomplish anything. And in the
JS> FWIW category, I found his article simplistic and, like all his other
JS> writings on ICANN, obviously colored by his personal views of the
JS> enterprise.  Just a personal opinion.

JS> Joe Sims

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

- ----
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 19:45:17 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: "The constituency model hasn't worked, and it's not going to work."

Jim and all assembly members,

  Respectfully I and many of our members disagree in part with Danny
but yet do agree with Rick Wesson comments and statements with
respect to the constituency model.

  The constituency model as Danny partly states and Rick states
has not worked thus far.  This does not mean it cannot or should not.
Danny is right in part also that had there been an open formation of
other constituencies which was at one time hotly debated, the constituency
model might have worked well or at least better than it is now.  To a degree
The Constituency model has worked well for the IPC, and the BC
as they are the only constituencies that the ICANN BoD have been
paying any serious attention to as the did ram through the WLS and
the UDRP as well as it now seems the .ORG decisions.

Jim Fleming wrote:

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc11/msg00710.html
> From: [email-masked]
> "The constituency model hasn't worked, and it's not going to work."
> ====
>
> Correct, that was known before it was adopted. People would not listen.
> You do not seem to have all of the history of why that approach was used.
> To make a long story short, it was adopted to PREVENT any challenge to
> the insiders. They are not stupid. They knew they could rely on people
> jumping in head over heals to be part of a democracy that had no ability to
> impact anything. All of the resources are carefully controlled by other methods.
> The insiders have very valuable resources to control and to keep away from
> any notion of democratic participation.
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
> In a true democracy, people participate because they have an interest in the
> resources they represent. They do not participate to be part of an experiment.
> In real life they protect their land and their physical bodies, their friends and
> their families. They also protect their assets. They vote on representatives to
> help themselves to collectively protect their assets. They participate because they
> have a vested interest. There are resources backing their participation.
>
> The constituency model divides people. It allows the insiders to retain all of the
> control, while giving un-educated people the impression they are part of some
> sort of democratic process. The insiders rely on an infinite number of people to
> jump into their model, thinking it will work. Those people find it is an empty hope.
> The insiders do not care, they are not wasting their time there. They set up the
> model to distract and to depower the people. It angers them when people become
> educated and see thru the sham.
>
> 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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 19:50:07 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Antitrust Violations: Fact versus Fiction

Michael and all assembly members,

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> 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.

  It is and has been clear for some time that all certainly is not well
with the BC as you rightly state here.

>
>
> 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.

  Good points here Michael.

>
>
> 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

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 19:54:22 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:

> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that

You're hardly the one to be making a call on competence.

Q. Who drafted the original contract between ICANN and Verisign?

A. Joe Simms.

Q. Did it have shortcomings?

A. Apparently, as it had to be re-done, and Verisign got to negotiate new
terms in the process.

Q. Who drafted the replacement?

A. Joe Simms (or maybe Verisign did it and he just put his name to it?).

Q. Who told everyone the the resultant contract was not negotiable?

A. Joe Simms.

Q. Was it not-negotiable?

A. Err, No. Negotiations continued, although Verisign DID get to keep it's
registrar operation because of Joe Simm's original fuck-ups.

I guess that means we should take anything you say with a grain of salt too?

So once again, FUCK OFF, JOE SIMMS, THE INTERNET IS SICK OF YOUR EVILNESS.

And I guess I'll be seeing the rest of you in another 2 weeks. :^)

I remain,

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
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 21:44:26 -0400
From: "John Berryhill" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

Obviously Mr. Sims didn't read it far enough to determine that there were
two authors because he has a large grain of salt stuck in his eye.

>
> 	It is precisely because Froomkin is not himself an antitrust
> expert that he co-authored his article on "ICANN and Antitrust" with Mark
> Lemley, who *is* an antitrust expert.
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> > I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on
> antitrust with a
> > very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say
> he is not an
> > antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that

- --
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 22:51:20 -0400
From: "Joe Sims" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

Mark Lemley does know what he is talking about on antitrust subjects.
Unfortunately, he apparently relied on Froomkin for his ICANN knowledge,
since the factual portion of the article is just as screwed up and
distorted as other work by Froomkin.  So, unfortunately, Mark's antitrust
knowledge, as applied to those facts, is not very helpful.  But, as
Jonathan says, people can read it for themselves and form their own
opinion.  As I said in my previous note, this is mine.

Joe Sims

                                                                                                                   
                    Jonathan                                                                                       
                    Weinberg             To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>                                     
                    <[email-masked]     cc:     [email-masked]                                                       
                    sen.com>             Subject:     Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice                         

                    09/25/02 08:38                                                                                 
                    PM                                                                                             

           It is precisely because Froomkin is not himself an antitrust
expert that he co-authored his article on "ICANN and Antitrust" with Mark
Lemley, who *is* an antitrust expert.
<http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=173>
I guarantee that their article is worth careful examination; list members
who read it can make up their own minds as to its merits.
<http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf>

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with
a
> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not
an
> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that

- --
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 14:11:09 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

At 06:10 p.m. 25/09/2002 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:

>I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
>very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
>antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
>concluding that something is an antitrust violation without a clear
>understanding of all the facts, considered in the full context of the
>environment in which the specific conduct is taking place, is essentially
>worthless.

Mr Sims,

I read the Froomkin/Lemley draft article, and without giving myself any 
credit for competence in this specific area of American law, I do see 
merit  for the debate here in the points that it raises and precedents that 
it presents. I did not read that it was meant as "legal advice".

As for relying on competent anti-trust lawyers in this debate, do you 
suggest that this Assembly rely on  *practicing* anti-trust lawyers who 
have clients to please?

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M. (Dutch Law)--
   initial webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.

- --
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:19:34 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN and the Representativeness of its Constituencies

Michael,

On 06:51 p.m. 25/09/2002 -0400, Michael D. Palage said:
>Attached please find a pdf document that I am working on in connection with
>an audit regarding the representativeness of each of the ICANN DNSO
>constituencies. Any comments would be welcome.

Thanks for that effort, Michael.

For completeness' sake, as the ICANN site itself still makes mention of it 
(http://www.icann.org/dnso/additionalpage.htm) ,  you might also want to 
add the Individual Domain Name Owners' constituency, formed with a ratified 
Charter, having petitioned the Board  for recognition and never formally 
turned down, supported by vote of the GA, having a website and mailing list 
and about 250 members, hijacked and silenced by William Walsh who now owns 
www.idno.org   but  ready to spring back to life the moment the ICANN Board 
recognizes it as a legitimate D/GNSO  constituency.

see the original and still updated site at www.democracy.org.nz

- --Joop

- --
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:09:35 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

Joe and all assembly members,

Joe Sims wrote:

> Mark Lemley does know what he is talking about on antitrust subjects.

  Interesting assertion here Joe as Mark is listed as antitrust specialist..

>
> Unfortunately, he apparently relied on Froomkin for his ICANN knowledge,
> since the factual portion of the article is just as screwed up and
> distorted as other work by Froomkin.

  Look Joe, we all know hand have known that you do not like
Prof. Fromkin.  That's fine.  he doesn't care for me too much either.
That is not way justifies this comment.  This document that Froomkin
and Lemley jointly published is just a paper for review.  I am sure
it shall receive some serious review.  It is in no way advice as
you seem to wish to characterize it.  Nor was it offered as such.

> So, unfortunately, Mark's antitrust
> knowledge, as applied to those facts, is not very helpful.  But, as
> Jonathan says, people can read it for themselves and form their own
> opinion.  As I said in my previous note, this is mine.

Your entitled to your opinion.  In point of fact as you state it
above your opinion is tainted and also based on a false assumption
regarding Mark Lemley.  Hence it appears pretty obvious to me,
as it has now to a number of others, that you are simply grandstanding.
That tactic if applied with great skill and gile may work sometimes
in a court of law, and sometimes it will get you held in contempt.
Here you are addressing lay people as well as some legal folks.
You have and will likely be getting more of the contempt type
of reaction than not.  That does not aid ICANN in any
positive way..

  In any event, Joe I disagree with your opinion as it is predominantly
not based in fact nor is it of reasonable merit, but more borne of
personal dislike for Prof. Froomkin.

>

>
>
> Joe Sims
>
>
>                     Jonathan
>                     Weinberg             To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>
>                     <[email-masked]     cc:     [email-masked]
>                     sen.com>             Subject:     Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice
>
>
>                     09/25/02 08:38
>                     PM
>
>
>
>            It is precisely because Froomkin is not himself an antitrust
> expert that he co-authored his article on "ICANN and Antitrust" with Mark
> Lemley, who *is* an antitrust expert.
> <http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=173>
> I guarantee that their article is worth careful examination; list members
> who read it can make up their own minds as to its merits.
> <http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf>
>
> Jon
>
> Jonathan Weinberg
> [email-masked]
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> > I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with
> a
> > very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not
> an
> > antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
>
> --
> 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 23:52:28 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:54:22PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> 
>> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
>> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
>> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
> 
> You're hardly the one to be making a call on competence.

Joe's Bio from Jones-Day 
(http://www1.jonesday.com/attorneys/bio.asp?AttorneyID=13072):

  Joe Sims chairs both the Firm's Technology Issues practice and the
  Antitrust & Trade Regulation practice.  His practice is concentrated
  in antitrust and related areas of government regulation and includes
  litigation, counseling, and agency practice before state and federal
  courts, antitrust enforcement agencies, and various specialized
  agencies (e.g., FCC and DOT) where competition policy or antitrust
  issues arise.  He has especially broad experience in dealing with
  mergers and acquisitions and with the full range of antitrust issues
  involving technology, telecommunications, and the electronic media
  industries.  Representative clients in recent public matters include
  Abbott Laboratories; AOL Time Warner; Aventis S.A.; Ernst & Young;
  Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); Liberty
  Media; Nextel Communications; Procter & Gamble; R.J.  Reynolds Tobacco
  Co.; TV Guide, Inc.; Viacom; and The Williams Companies. 

  Joe is a member of the American Bar Association (Antitrust Law
  Section, former chair of the Section 1 Committee and the Civil
  Practice and Procedure Committee; Administrative Law and Regulatory
  Practice Section; Litigation Section; and Business Law Section, former
  chair of the Antitrust Law Committee).  He is a Fellow of the American
  Bar Foundation and a member of The American Law Institute.  He serves
  on the Executive Committee of the Institute for Law and Technology of
  the Center for American and International Law. 

  Joe regularly writes and lectures on antitrust and related subjects. 
  He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, in The World's Leading
  Lawyers, and in various other publications recognizing leading
  antitrust lawyers in the world.  In 2001, he was included in a listing
  of the world's top 10 antitrust lawyers by Global Counsel magazine,
  and in 2000 was one of 15 lawyers recognized as the "Dealmakers of the
  Year" by The American Lawyer magazine.  He is admitted to practice
  before the United States Supreme Court and a majority of the federal
  courts of appeal. 

- --
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:06:47 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

I want to make sure that my dialogue with Dr. Froomkin was in no means
meant to demean his great
paper.
The cases cited on pages 3, 23, 24,25 and 26 are great research.  And
his recital of facts are,
from what I can tell completely accurate and well drafted.

I only meant to point out the difference in practice and probability of
successes.
I do definitely believe that ICANN is a violating company of the Sherman
Act.
But what the heck do I know.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Joe and all assembly members,
>
> Joe Sims wrote:
>
> > Mark Lemley does know what he is talking about on antitrust subjects.
>
>   Interesting assertion here Joe as Mark is listed as antitrust specialist..
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, he apparently relied on Froomkin for his ICANN knowledge,
> > since the factual portion of the article is just as screwed up and
> > distorted as other work by Froomkin.
>
>   Look Joe, we all know hand have known that you do not like
> Prof. Fromkin.  That's fine.  he doesn't care for me too much either.
> That is not way justifies this comment.  This document that Froomkin
> and Lemley jointly published is just a paper for review.  I am sure
> it shall receive some serious review.  It is in no way advice as
> you seem to wish to characterize it.  Nor was it offered as such.
>
> > So, unfortunately, Mark's antitrust
> > knowledge, as applied to those facts, is not very helpful.  But, as
> > Jonathan says, people can read it for themselves and form their own
> > opinion.  As I said in my previous note, this is mine.
>
> Your entitled to your opinion.  In point of fact as you state it
> above your opinion is tainted and also based on a false assumption
> regarding Mark Lemley.  Hence it appears pretty obvious to me,
> as it has now to a number of others, that you are simply grandstanding.
> That tactic if applied with great skill and gile may work sometimes
> in a court of law, and sometimes it will get you held in contempt.
> Here you are addressing lay people as well as some legal folks.
> You have and will likely be getting more of the contempt type
> of reaction than not.  That does not aid ICANN in any
> positive way..
>
>   In any event, Joe I disagree with your opinion as it is predominantly
> not based in fact nor is it of reasonable merit, but more borne of
> personal dislike for Prof. Froomkin.
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Joe Sims
> >
> >
> >                     Jonathan
> >                     Weinberg             To:     Joe Sims <[email-masked]>
> >                     <[email-masked]     cc:     [email-masked]
> >                     sen.com>             Subject:     Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice
> >
> >
> >                     09/25/02 08:38
> >                     PM
> >
> >
> >
> >            It is precisely because Froomkin is not himself an antitrust
> > expert that he co-authored his article on "ICANN and Antitrust" with Mark
> > Lemley, who *is* an antitrust expert.
> > <http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyProfile.php?facID=173>
> > I guarantee that their article is worth careful examination; list members
> > who read it can make up their own minds as to its merits.
> > <http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf>
> >
> > Jon
> >
> > Jonathan Weinberg
> > [email-masked]
> >
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> > > I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with
> > a
> > > very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not
> > an
> > > antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
> >
> > --
> > 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
- --
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 00:19:30 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Froomkin's antitrust advice

Past accomplishments on the Internet are like Vint Cerf putting on his resume'
that he help steal at wordlcom.
Do not insult us Kent.
"if he don't know the net then he is all wet"
It is his position that stinks not his credentials.
Although you do show how dated he is and out of touch.
But I think that may fit in with your deal also - no?

When a person puts their character on the witness stand as a reason to believe in
them, then it is open season on the proponent and the witness - rules of evidence,
Chief Justice Supreme Court United States, Cordoza.
eric

[email-masked] wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 07:54:22PM -0500, Andy Gardner wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> >
> >> I suggest that readers take Professor Froomkin's advice on antitrust with a
> >> very large grain of salt; it would be an understatement to say he is not an
> >> antitrust expert.  Any competent antitrust lawyer would tell you that
> >
> > You're hardly the one to be making a call on competence.
>
> Joe's Bio from Jones-Day
> (http://www1.jonesday.com/attorneys/bio.asp?AttorneyID=13072):
>
>   Joe Sims chairs both the Firm's Technology Issues practice and the
>   Antitrust & Trade Regulation practice.  His practice is concentrated
>   in antitrust and related areas of government regulation and includes
>   litigation, counseling, and agency practice before state and federal
>   courts, antitrust enforcement agencies, and various specialized
>   agencies (e.g., FCC and DOT) where competition policy or antitrust
>   issues arise.  He has especially broad experience in dealing with
>   mergers and acquisitions and with the full range of antitrust issues
>   involving technology, telecommunications, and the electronic media
>   industries.  Representative clients in recent public matters include
>   Abbott Laboratories; AOL Time Warner; Aventis S.A.; Ernst & Young;
>   Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); Liberty
>   Media; Nextel Communications; Procter & Gamble; R.J.  Reynolds Tobacco
>   Co.; TV Guide, Inc.; Viacom; and The Williams Companies.
>
>   Joe is a member of the American Bar Association (Antitrust Law
>   Section, former chair of the Section 1 Committee and the Civil
>   Practice and Procedure Committee; Administrative Law and Regulatory
>   Practice Section; Litigation Section; and Business Law Section, former
>   chair of the Antitrust Law Committee).  He is a Fellow of the American
>   Bar Foundation and a member of The American Law Institute.  He serves
>   on the Executive Committee of the Institute for Law and Technology of
>   the Center for American and International Law.
>
>   Joe regularly writes and lectures on antitrust and related subjects.
>   He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, in The World's Leading
>   Lawyers, and in various other publications recognizing leading
>   antitrust lawyers in the world.  In 2001, he was included in a listing
>   of the world's top 10 antitrust lawyers by Global Counsel magazine,
>   and in 2000 was one of 15 lawyers recognized as the "Dealmakers of the
>   Year" by The American Lawyer magazine.  He is admitted to practice
>   before the United States Supreme Court and a majority of the federal
>   courts of appeal.
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1439
*************************