Re: Re[4]: [wg-c] straw poll -- reminder

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > "The difference is that there is no assumption that MORE gTLDs will be
> > added in option 1."  I thought there was an assumption that more gTLDs
> > would be added under option 1, but that it would be limited to a "few"
> > (i.e., slow controlled initial rollout).
> 
> If you add even a single new TLD, then any entity willing to abide
> by the terms of that addition should be allowed to have a TLD added
> for them as well. To do otherwise would almost certainly be some
> form of restrained trade, and most probably an antitrust violation.
> 
> ICANN is a U.S. entity and specifically liable for antitrust issues.
> 
> We either find a way to do this right, and not impose arbitrary limits
> other than operational pacing, or we give up and add none.
> 
> Alas, if we add none, then we're back into an antitrust position
> again for ICANN.
> 
> Do it slowly, steady, and fairly.
> 
> Christopher

You are presuming that this addition be *given* to a company. If so, then yes,
I would imagine you could accuse ICANN of restraint of trade. However, if
the TLD is not GIVEN, but rather is tendered, then voila, you have finished
any accusation of restraint of trade, because anyone can push for tendering
of it.
I think it would be much more dangerous to give IOD ".web" than actually
tender it. If it is GIVEN to IOD, then ICANN can be accused of restraint of
trade (hey, why didn't MY company get ".web" given to it????).
I agree, restraint of trade should be avoided completely.
However, between GIVING and adding none (both of which could be accused
somehow of restraint of trade), tendering the running of the registry under
periodical conditions that would be reviewed under stated conditions (no
surprises for anyone), would seem to be the way to go.

Yours, John Broomfield.