Re: [ga] ICANN, Verisign, and Competition

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,

On a personal and ethical note here, I for the life of me cannot
understand
or contemplate how DOC/NTIA legal staff could allow such language
to be used in this manner.  It's mind boggling!

kidsearch wrote:

>    "ICANN does not create or make Internet policy. Rather, policy is
> created through a bottom-up, transparent process involving all
> necessary constituencies and stakeholders in the Internet Community."
>
> As long as they can decide who are the "necessary" constituencies and
> stakeholders, then they can make that claim.
>
> Chris McElroy
>
> http://www.wholettheblogout.com
>
> http://www.newsandmediablog.com
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard Henderson
>   To: General Assembly of the DNSO
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 5:58 PM
>   Subject: [ga] ICANN, Verisign, and Competition
>
>
>   I thought one of the remits of ICANN, under the terms of its MoU
> with the DoC, was to promote competition:
>
>   "The President directed the Secretary of Commerce to privatize the
> management of the domain name system (DNS) in a manner that increases
> competition" This was to promote what the MoU also called: "the
> development of robust competition in the management of Internet names
> and addresses." The MoU continues: "This competition will lower costs,
> promote innovation, and enhance user choice and satisfaction."
>
>   How does it promote competition if you grant a permanent monopoly of
> a TLD to a single entity, and additionally allow it to unilaterally
> raise the cost of its product year-on-year by more than the rate of
> inflation? How does that "lower costs"?
>
>   Was the decision to grant these extraordinary rights based on
> strenuous encouragement of competition to see which bidders would
> offer the lowest and most competitive prices to the consumer? What was
> the case for not encouraging multiple parties to "bid" for the
> Registry rights, in order to bring prices down?
>
>   Was the decision based on full and "bottom up" discussion with all
> ICANN constituencies, to achieve 'consensus' and acceptance of the
> ICANN community as a whole that this process and decision were the
> right ones, the ones which would best open up the market, the ones
> which would best achieve competition and lower costs for consumers and
> other businesses? Were all parties and constituencies involved in the
> bottom up generation of this "deal" or was the deal a "top-down" fait
> accomplis, foisted upon people? Why are so many parties protesting?
> Where is the "consensus"? Is "bottom up" just a meaningless facade?
>
>   The MoU says ICANN "shall not apply standards, policies, procedures
> or practices inequitably or single out any particular party for
> disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable
> cause and will ensure sufficient appeal procedures for adversely
> affected members of the Internet community." Are all TLDs to be
> administered on the same basis of perpetual rights being given to each
> Registry? Was Verisign in any way "singled out" for special treatment,
> as part of a deal to avoid legal conflict, or for any other reason?
>
>   In what sense is this "deal" obviously and openly 'competitive'?
>
>   In what sense is this deal endorsed by the various ICANN
> constituencies that are supposed to play a full part in a "bottom up"
> development of policy? Quote from the ICANN fact sheet at:
> http://www.icann.org/general/fact-sheet.html
>
>   "ICANN does not create or make Internet policy. Rather, policy is
> created through a bottom-up, transparent process involving all
> necessary constituencies and stakeholders in the Internet Community."
>
>   In what sense is this deal reasonable and acceptable and in the best
> interests of all parties, rather than just the best interests of
> Verisign?
>
>   Yrs,
>
>   Richard Henderson
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827