[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [wg-c] Unofficial report on L.A. meeting
On Sat, Nov 06, 1999 at 11:34:51AM -0500, A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> >In the recent round of discussion, the REASON that doing a not-for-profit
> >first was stated simply and directly.
> Sure, it is called restraining the market, and very appealing
> to socialists and those who would benefit by manipulating the
> market to their advantage.
An anti-trust lawyer of significant reputation that I know says that
this is not an issue :-) -- there are indeed pitfalls, but they can be
> >Care to provide the reason(s) that a for-profit is "safer"?
> Significantly less liability for the corporation and the
You, of course, are not an anti-trust specialist. As you know,
however, ICANN has very significant expertise in this area available
> - which raises the question of whether ICANN's
> liability coverage extends to Working Group participants, and
> for what amount.
That's interesting. So, in a bit of poetic justice, a lawsuit
directed against wg-c participants would have as defendants you,
Chris Ambler, Roeland Meyer, Milton Mueller, and a host of others
besides the evil communists and socialists you rail against.
And given the number of lawyers on this list, some from major law
firms, it would indeed be a most interesting case to watch.
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain