<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] ICANN Board sells out to US Gov't
- To: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN Board sells out to US Gov't
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:27:03 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=g4COhyKupCUUHb/mHzZfDvDqQpf8JzSkiAqNd7I/T9pRmohGtXAF4gQXCW96n/QIhii3Ico5lg6dwJwe0Va6EbsP0ksEoDBSl74Yx41lBHCWwD+X2LPgxl/kADDCaYtNQIJQsqhcOknp8Et10uk9TIk7S55426Qa1h7avE1Xpb0= ;
- In-reply-to: <451F2580.6090907@cavebear.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Point well taken. Liability avoidance is clear. Maybe this sleeping dog should just lie.
Take that as you will.
e
Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hugh Dierker wrote:
> I would like to know from Karl what his thoughts are on this respecting
> a "sell out".
Since the agreement has nothing that transfers any property or property
rights ("government furnished equipment") to ICANN there is a rather
open question what ICANN loses[*] by telling NTIA to take a flying leap
at a rolling donut.
[*] The answer, of course, is that the presence of NTIA's hand resting
on ICANN's shoulder dissuades those who would otherwise consider legal
claims against ICANN. Were ICANN to shed its link to the US government,
it would (as well as the vendors who participate in ICANN's forums), I
suspect, be nearly instantly attacked in the US and abroad as a
combination in restraint of trade.
Personally I think that the question is long overdue and that ICANN
would server the community of internet users by allowing that question
to be squarely faced.
--karl--
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|