Re: [council] FW: Statement of New Registry Services PDP

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx>]

I am sure that Jeff does not need to be told this, but 
perhaps Amadeu does. 

Even without this latest proposal to vet market entry,
ICANN raises severe antitrust issues. It is now and 
always has been an arrangement by which entry into supply
of a resource (gTLD names) is controlled largely by an 
organization composed of suppliers, which comes very 
close to the textbook definition of a cartel. And 
although there are switching costs, the idea that gTLDs are 
not in the same market and do not compete against each 
for the same customers is to me obviously wrong; I would 
have fun debating this formally with Amadeu (it's always fun 
to win) but this is not the time or place for that. 

Antitrust was a major consideration during the Green Paper
and White Paper phases of ICANN's development, and a
specific decision was made NOT to exempt it from 
antitrust concerns.

There is literature in respected law reviews calling attention 
to ICANN-related antitrust issues, such as this recent University 
of Illinois Law Review paper:
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf

In short, I agree that at this stage, Jeff and other registries 
can safely discuss what GNSO's role should be in developing 
a procedure. But I completely reject Amadeu's apologia, 
and the superficial assurances underlying it, and suggest 
that those who are serious about the permanence of these 
"self-regulatory" arrangements need to take the registries' 
concerns more seriously.

--MM