Jim Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The claim of US power [over NSI] is demonstrably false, by virtue of
>> the continuing pattern of poor decision-making the USG has made with
>> respect to NSI and
> If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Prove that the US
> government lacks the legal tools necessary to deal with monopolies.
> In other words, rewrite history. Prove that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't
> busting trusts 100 years ago. Go ahead, Dave. Show us your stuff.
While it's true that the USG has the legal tools necessary to deal
with monopolies, it's not clear that NSI would be recognized as a
monopoly. Therefore, it's not clear that the USG has the legal
resources to deal with NSI as if it were a monopoly.
As I've pointed out several times, there are numerous ways of getting
an online presence besides registering as yourname.{com,net,org}. I'm
sure the USG is aware of this, but if they are not, this would no
doubt be brought to light in an antitrust trial. IANAL (I am not a
lawyer), but I think it would be quite difficult to prove that NSI is
a monopoly.
> No one has spoken of demonic predilections here. I have, however,
> said several times that the ICANN board knows little about the
> Internet and has not demonstrated any competence in solving its
> problems.
As an aside, I don't think this is true of all board members.
Certainly, it's untrue of Jun Murai and Mike Roberts. I wish they
would contribute to the discussions here, particularly in areas where
they've had experience. That would go a long way towards building
trust, IMO.
--gregbo
