[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista

Sat Jul 14 02:51:57 UTC 2018

Carlton, you are as sane and clear eyed as you have always been.  Yes, 
ICANN quacks like a regulatory body and walks like a regulatory body.

(Which I guess means that ICANN is a duck?)

I agree with you that ICANN regulates - it controls, allocates, revokes, 
and levies fees.  It also shares some other attributes with regulatory 
bodies: It is effectively unavoidable and its decisions have ripples 
that go far beyond those whose actions are directly shaped by the body.

As Even L. pointed out ICANN may have legal reasons to try to fend away 
the word "regulator".  That's not surprising, but that kind of wordplay 
is approaching an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak.  And it's nothing new 
to ICANN: back in year 2000 they tried to label a thing that was clearly 
an "election" as something else called a "selection" in an attempt to 
evade California laws regarding the obligations of non-profit/public 
benefit corporations.

One has to wonder why are intelligent people so afraid to use a 
description that so clearly applies?

Well, perhaps it is because there is fear of that word reviving a long 
unanswered question.

As you mention, ICANN shapes internet domain name policies and 
economics, and even charges "fees" that everyone would agree would be 
called "taxes" if levied by a governmental body.

A better way to put this is to say that ICANN restrains some trade and 
encourages other trade.  I used that former phrase because it tends to 
raise the question of "what provides ICANN with immunity from anti-trust 
laws"?

This paper from year 2003 still remains largely unanswered: 
http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann-antitrust.pdf

By-the-way, with regard to the vistaprint TLD and the discussion of 
ICANN application fees - I went through the round a few years ago and 
did the better part of 100 applications, with each being an almost 
identical application with only a couple of pages of different marketing 
info.  Yet we got hit with the full $185,000 charge for each one of 
those even though the review for each was essentially identical.  It 
made me feel that as between ICANN and a highway robber saying "stand 
and deliver" that the latter was less blameworthy.

	--karl--

On 07/13/2018 05:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> It really isn't a personal opinion; the facts are undeniable by virtue 
> of the admitted regulatory signs.
> 
> It is in ICANN's power to gift a resource, set the requirements by which 
> one can be gifted, set the rules for use of resource, charge and punish 
> violations of the rules as appropriate and exact a fee for gifting that 
> resource.  Anywhere else in Christendom and the known sensate world, 
> those activities are the very definition of a regulator.
> 
> ICANN has managed to convince itself and would wish to make 
> accommodating idiots of the rest of us because it is politically 
> difficult to do otherwise. I get the politics of it. But to ask me to 
> deny the evidence of my two lying eyes and what is plainly the case in 
> reason and judgment is a bridge too far. The Christian bible has a line 
> in it "in Christ all things are possible". I would add a caution to that 
> declaration:  Save and except to take me for an idiot.
> 
> -Carlton
> 
> ==============================
> /Carlton A Samuels/
> /Mobile: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 4:13 PM Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Indeed Goran has said "ICANN is not a regulator" many times.  I have
>     heard him saying that myself.  However, this is something I disagree
>     with him.
> 
>     Again, in my personal opinion, as long as the positioning of ICANN
>     stays blurry as it is now, the confusion will only accumulate until
>     it creats a crisis.
> 
>     Kaili
> 
> 
> 
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "Johan Helsingius" <julf at julf.com <mailto:julf at julf.com>>
>     To: <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
>     Sent: Friday, July 13, 2018 8:33 PM
>     Subject: Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] Vistaprint is abandoning .vista
> 
> 
>      > On 12-07-18 19:56, Kan Kaili wrote:
>      >> In my opinion, ICANN should play the role of a regulator.
>      >
>      > Our esteemed CEO, Göran Marby, has a number of phrases he repeats
>      > fairly often. "ICANN is not a regulator" is one of them.
>      >
>      > Julf
>      >
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > At-Large mailing list
>      > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>      > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>      >
>      > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>     _______________________________________________
>     At-Large mailing list
>     At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>     <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
>     At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 