Internet and e-mail policy and practice including Notes on Internet E-mail

←2005→ Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Click the comments link on any story to see comments or add your own. Subscribe to this blog RSS feed

Home :: ICANN 03 Dec 2005 Notes on the ICANN ALAC meeting with the board ICANN For the first time in the ALAC's history, it had a short joint meeting with the ICANN board of directors. The meeting was open, and Bret Fausett has a podcast of the meeting available. We spent most of the hour discussing the contentious Verisign settlement proposal, and the statement that the ALAC made, commenting on the proposal. The good news is that the board tried hard to give the impression that they were paying attention to our comments. Vint Cerf took notes, and they asked questions. They also told us some interesting things about the settlement process that hadn't previously come to light. In response to our suggestion that they needed economic analysis of whether .COM is a monopoly, Paul Twomey told us that they'd been talking to their contacts at the US Commerce Department, who had referred the price question to the Justice Department, who in turn set a flock of analysts to work on it, and said the 7% annual increase was OK. I take that to mean that DOJ said that if they kept the increases under 7%, they wouldn't get into anti-trust trouble. Somehow that got spun into 7% increases as being OK for everyone. Bret commented that there's no reason to give Verisign one cent of increase if it's monopoly rent rather than cost recovery, and we have no way to tell. We asked how we could get a copy of the government's comments, a request that seemed to surprise the board members. "You probably can't." We think a Freedom of Information Act request may be in the offing. I asked them to give us a schedule for comments and votes, and set a date of perhaps April 1 to get in comments. Vint said no, they wanted to see what comments they got before setting a schedule for them. Huh? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that they show so little understanding of what the purpose of a process is, but it's consistently dismaying. posted at: 15:50 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments posted at: 15:50 :: permanent link to this entry :: 1 comments comments...        (Jump to the end to add your own comment) ICANN: What's in the DOC analysis of the Verisign agreement? At ALAC's meeting with the ICANN Board, in response to criticism of the price increases built into the Verisign settlement agreement, Paul Twomey suggested that the 7% annual increase had been blessed by U.S. regulators. He said, for the first time, that ICANN had asked the Department of Commerce, which had referred the question to the Department of Justice for competition analysis. The same report was claimed as justification at the public forum the next day. If these reports are going to be used as a basis or justification for ICANN action, they should be disclosed to the ICANN public. If not, a FOIA request will be in order. See also John Levine's notes.... (by Wendy's Blog: Legal Tags 03 Dec 2005 15:28) Add your comment... Note: all comments require an email address to send a confirmation to verify that it was posted by a person and not a spambot. The comment won't be visible until you click the link in the confirmation. Unless you check the box below, which almost nobody does, your email won't be displayed, and I won't use it for other purposes.   Name: Email: you@wherever (required, for confirmation) Title: (optional) Comments: Show my Email address Save my Name and Email for next time

Topics Copyright Law - 29 Email - 228 ICANN - 127 Internet - 73 Money - 31 Security - 3 My other sites Who is this guy? Airline ticket info Taughannock Networks Other blogs CAUCE It turns out you don’t need a license to hunt for spam. 27 days ago A keen grasp of the obvious Italian Apple Cake 585 days ago Related sites Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail Network Abuse Clearinghouse

© 2005-2020 John R. Levine.
CAN SPAM address harvesting notice: the operator of this website will not give, sell, or otherwise transfer addresses maintained by this website to any other party for the purposes of initiating, or enabling others to initiate, electronic mail messages.