Re: [ga] Thoughts/question on the WLS

[Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>]

John Berryhill wrote:
> The *only* thing that prevents Verisign and Snapnames from starting WLS
> *tomorrow* is their own lack of will, and their desire to have ICANN's
> blessing (which, if you think about it, answers a previous question of
> yours - they want that defense).

Under my scenario though, ICANN wouldn't bless this. Its response would
simply be something like:

   (a) Under ICANN's interpretation of the .com registry
       contract, Verisign is not precluded from introducing
       the Waiting List Service; but

   (b) ICANN neither requires nor blesses the introduction
       of the Waiting List Service and takes no position on
       whether, when or how it is implemented. If any person
       or company believes that the introduction of the
       Waiting List Service has anticompetitive effects, then
       appropriate remedies exist -- through either government
       enforcement of relevant antitrust laws or private civil
       actions -- to address those concerns, but those
       are outside the scope of ICANN's current mandate.

The registrars have already tacitly agreed that not all anticompetitive acts
taken by those under contract with ICANN are ICANN's responsibility to sort
out. Take, for example, the recent actions by registrars and registrants
against Verisign's direct mail renewal/transfer campaign. Tucows was just
sued for defamation (http://comingsoon.tucows.com/.court_case//) by a
competitor. What exactly separates the kind of business disputes that have
recently ended up in court from the kind of business dispute that was
detailed in the Dotster WLS letter circulated earlier this week? Why is one
supposedly within the scope of ICANN's responsibilities while the others
outside it?

     -- Bret


 



--
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