[At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Price increases in .com

[Michael Maranda]

These matters should be followed from the perspective of Anti-Trust. I very
much agree in the questioning of 'market regulation' especially when the
illusion of a market is being fostered.  And a fortiori in a scenario of
limited insulation of the governance function... what can at-large
constituency do?  1) Nothing?   done deal.   2) wring our hands, meekly
express dissatisfaction, 3) bring the story to other consumer advocate
groups?

It may be the case that the climate doesnt bode well for any Anti-Trust
action.  (This may be changing).  But our definition of "practical effect"
should include setting the stage for greater accountability.

It is understood that Verisign used legal pressure/threat in it's
strategy.   As a result of those agreements, will ICANN be in a different
position next time?

On 7/9/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
>
> I have changed the subject. I will respond separately on the "tasting
> fee" issue.
>
> Michael Maranda ha scritto:
> > Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows...  exclusive contracts
> > were won in part by expectations of price decreases.
> >
> > At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board of
> > Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to build up
> > our credibility through "productivity" first.
>
> Just for the sake of precision, we did have clear words when this was
> decided, at the end of 2005:
>
> http://alac.icann.org/announcements/announcement-02dec05.htm
>
> Unfortunately, the new .com contract (which allows Verisign to
> unilaterally increase the registry price by 7% per year) was the result
> of a political/legal settlement, in which Verisign dropped lawsuits and
> agreed to support ICANN in exchange for this new contract. The Board at
> that time decided that it was the right thing to do, because it would
> ensure the corporation a steady source of revenue, eliminate legal
> risks, and other similar considerations.
>
> In my opinion, that situation only showed a big flaw of the "private
> governance model", in which an entity which should have the authority to
> act for the public good is forced not to do so because it lacks the
> insulation from business and legal pressures that a governmental
> authority would have, but that possibly is because I do not have the
> same kind of blind faith in commercial enterprises and in "market
> self-regulation" that many people at ICANN seem to have.
>
> > Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to the
> > Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the official
> > date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship demands better?
>
> If we want to say "we told you", I'm fine. That wouldn't have any
> practical effect, though - but perhaps would help in preventing similar
> situations from happening again.
> --
> vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
> -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking

Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:
http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070709/01a4538b/attachment.html