Re: [wg-review] Constituencies, 1 governance and legality

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/31/01 7:30:30 PM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:

>Yet you apparently believe that registries and registrars should be
>controlled by such a scheme.
>
>There is no legal basis for such control: ICANN has no legal authority
>or moral ligitimacy to exercise control over any company, organization
>or person, except itself; ICANN has no "right" to regulate *anything*. 
>
>Your model, therefore, is based on fundamental flaw that has both
>practical and moral components: you assume that ICANN has a *right* to
>regulate registries and registrars, and the *power* to do so.  But it
>has neither.
>
>Instead, the fundamental premise of ICANN's existence is that
>registries/registrars are independent businesses that will compete in
>the marketplace.  That competition that is supposed to be the
>consumers lever over registries and registrars, not votes in ICANN.

Then what you are also saying Kent, is that any UDRP action to-date, 
was done without any "right" to do so?  That, in fact, such activity has no
official legal sanction, and is therefore, not-binding?  That, in fact, all those who've
been dispossessed in UDRP activity have a leitimate claim and "right" to seek
redress?  are you sure you mean what you're saying Mr. Crispin?  I think,
you better reconsider this position, fast!  Not that I care, what you do, Kent.






Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


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