Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is
> > *very* far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real
> > nature or even it's possible nature. I think a far better model
> > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a industry
> > standards body.
>
>Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the product ICANN
>is offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently
>the only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN
>is a (probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.


Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".

There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public utilities 
commission".  It does not provide direct service; rather it oversees the 
work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide service.  I have 
never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a monopoly.

Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities commission as a monopoly.

If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the operational 
differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus such a commission.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html