Re: [ga] Vint on proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello everyone,

First of all, we are not lawyers and are not offering any legal advice.
These are strictly our own personal opinions. Anyone reading this message
who requires legal advice should seek qualified legal counsel.

If the bottom-up consensus of the GNSO continues to be ignored by the ICANN
BoD and staffers, this timeline of events seems certain to be used as
evidence in either a DOJ RICO charge or a class action lawsuit against ICANN
and the registries.

We found the following definition of pattern of racketeering activity from
the Cornell Law School noteworthy.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001961----000-.html
 "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of
racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of
this chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any
period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering
activity"

Our interpretation is the new .com registry agreement could be the first act
of racketeering activity, with subsequent .biz/.info/.org registry
agreements considered as additional acts of racketeering activity.

The Cornell Law School also has a definition of what is considered
racketeering activity in connection with commerce, robbery or extortion.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001951----000-.html

Will ICANN Directors give domain registrants the shaft by approving the
proposed .biz/.info/.org registry agreements and risk up to 20 years
imprisonment? Only time will tell.....

OT - For those in the U.S., have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Vint on proposed .biz, .info and .org agreements


> Bret's views on Vint's comment:
>
> source:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg02489.html
>
>
> This is vintage Vint. Here's the chronology....
>
> (a) The GNSO is so shocked and repulsed by the ICANN
> Staff's approval of the .COM contract that it
> initiates a policy development process in February,
> 2006 (PDP-Feb06) to formulate policy on things it
> thought it could take for granted -- price caps,
> rebids on renewal.
>
> (b) Seeing the coming train, the registries for INFO,
> BIZ and ORG decide that they need to get in and
> renegotiate their contracts before the PDP comes down.
> ICANN Staff, obligingly, provides them the same
> treatment, which is contrary to the coming policy
> advice from the GNSO.
>
> (c) One of the contracts, that for .ORG, was just
> awarded a couple of years ago and doesn't expire until
> years down the road, and yet, we now have an emergency
> renegotiation and term extension, before we've even
> seen PIR carry out a substantial period of its initial
> award term.
>
> (d) Against a GNSO resolution that ICANN wait until
> the GNSO PDP concludes -- and we've been working
> overtime to get it done ASAP -- Vint now tells us that
> he is not constrained by our request to wait.
>
> (e) To add insult to the substantial injury ICANN will
> do to registrants via these contracts, Vint now writes
> that the Board can disregard GNSO advice, even on
> matters directly within the umbra of the GNSO's
> authority, because it is simply one input into the
> Board.
>
> What makes it Vintage Vint is that, as ever, Vint
> knows best. He is the father of the Internet and his
> paternalism knows no bounds. We ought to simply
> dispense with the advisory committees and supporting
> organizations because, at the end of the day, Vint
> will simply do what he knows is the best thing.
>
>
>            Bret
>
> P.S. To make matters worse, ICANN Staff has
> purposefully impeded the GNSO's work in recent days in
> an effort to say that we're not on track for Sao
> Paulo. In concert, the registries have filibustered
> our conference calls in an attempt to delay our work.