[ga] ICANN hypocrisy over price caps and competition in CFIT litigation

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

In the proposed .biz, .info and .org contracts:

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-28jul06.htm

ICANN goes even further than the .com proposed settlement with
VeriSign, and gives these registries removal of price caps "following
extensive consideration and discussion" (I don't recall any such public
discussionor consultation with the ICANN community and stakeholders).

However, take note of ICANN's statements in the CFIT litigation
regarding pricing caps on May 26th:

http://www.icann.org/general/litigation-cfit.htm
http://www.icann.org/legal/cfit-v-icann/icann-reply-on-cfit-26may06.pdf

"in a single supplier market, price caps are, if anything,
procompetitive (Mot. at 13-14);" [page 1 of the document, line 13, page
 6 of all 15]

"Nowhere does CFIT address the fact that, at this point in time, all
that ICANN and 
VeriSign have done is propose future price **limits** for .COM domain
names, which cannot be implemented until the DOC approves the .COM
Extension.  (Mot. at 20-22.)  And, as ICANN explained in its opening
brief, price caps in a single supplier market are considered
pro-competitive.  (Mot. at 13-14.)"  [page 8 of the document, line 14,
page  13 of all 15]

So, you have ICANN lawyers telling the court that price caps are
pro-competitive in these single supplier markets (i.e. where registries
are the single suppliers for each TLD). Indeed, it is part of ICANN's
mission to promote competition.

Yet, we have ICANN removing all price caps entirely on .biz, .info and
.org with these proposed new contracts. Something is amiss. Wouldn't
that contradict everything their lawyers said to the court??

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/