<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] ICANN hypocrisy over price caps and competition in CFIT litigation
- To: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN hypocrisy over price caps and competition in CFIT litigation
- From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:25:29 -0700
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, icann board address <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, "ICANN Gen. Council" <general-counsel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <20060731233359.84608.qmail@web50008.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
stakeholders/users,
As you should know by now, hypocrisy is an ICANN trademark/common
practice. It is also not unheard of in legal circles in litigation process
to later
find or have contradictory practice, policy and proposal introduced and/or
implemented. P.T. Barnum said it best: "Lawyers are like politicians, they
all
lie, they just do so with remarkable dexterity."
George Kirikos wrote:
> 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/
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|