Sheffo, Joe wrote:
>
> Attached is Chairman Bliley's letter of July 28.
No, it is not Chairman Bliley's letter. It is Esther Dyson's letter.
If Ogilvie is not paying any more attention than this slip would
seem to indicate, maybe Ogilvie should not be involved here.
> Dear Chairman Bliley:
>
<snip>
> The right to petition government is constitutionally
> protected, and indeed is one of the freedoms that has distinguished the
> American form of government.
Collusion and conspiracy to place unelected persons who represent
special interests in control of an entity regulating commerce for
the benefit of those interests is no part of the American form of
government. On the contrary, it is a violation of the antitrust
laws. Is that why Joe Sims was made the counsel of ICANN: to protect
ICANN from the antitrust laws? The keynote to that protection would
be the use of NSI as a shield, a smokescreen, to divert attention
from ICANN's own much more serious anti-competitive activities and
violations of law.
<snip>
> In this particular case, ICANN's counsel was urging the Department
> of Justice, which as part of its official mission is the principal advocate
> for competition within the Executive Branch, to urge the more rapid
> transition of domain name registration services from a single monopoly
> government contractor to a competitive market.
"Urge" a transition by investigating and harrassing NSI with
antitrust charges that were left in abeyance for good legal reasons?
And a transition to what? To a registrar system totally dominated by
CORE, via an illicit registrar accreditation procedure clearly
biased in favor of CORE and its constituents? Is that your idea of
competition, Ms. Dyson?
> The Department's
> representatives listened to this request, and agreed to consider it; that
> was the entire sum and substance of the conversation.
Of course they listened to it. Joe Sims used to work there. They're
all friends. Isn't that why Joe Sims was chosen as ICANN's counsel.
> let me respond on behalf of the Initial Board
> of Directors of ICANN to your specific questions.
>
> 1. Provide a listing of all communications between the Department of
> Justice and ICANN.
>
> We are unable to provide such a listing. We are not aware of any
> records of such communications other than the e-mail message previously
> provided.
The Commerce Committee ought to issue subpoenas and search the homes
and offices of the ICANN board, and especially the hard disks of
Esther Dyson, Mike Roberts, and Joe Sims, where they are quite
likely to find many communications between ICANN and the DOJ, unless
they have been destroyed by now. The email revealed to the Commerce
Committee wasn't a one-off. It's evident from the tone of it. That
was a message about an on-going relationship between Sims and the
Antitrust Division of the DOJ, a relationship that probably began
long ago, possibly even before ICANN was created. That email is the
tip of the iceberg.
> Nevertheless, we can state that there have been a number of
> discussions between counsel for ICANN and Department of Justice lawyers over
> the several months of ICANN's existence. Those conversations have generally
> concerned the antitrust and competitive policy issues relating to domain
> name registrations.
And how ICANN could avoid being charged with antitrust violations,
which is Mr. Sims' expertise and why he is ICANN's lawyer? To
protect ICANN from the Sherman Act? Through his long-term
relationship with the DOJ?
> We are aware of no other substantive conversations
> between a representative of ICANN and any official or employee of the
> Department of Justice.
Unaware of them, or that there were none? "I am unaware", "I can't
recall". How many times have these hollow phrases been heard in the
courtrooms of the U.S.A.?
> Such communications are
> part of the ordinary activities of ICANN's counsel and would not require nor
> normally generate prior notification or approval. Questions about the ICANN
> Board's reaction to the conversation after the fact appear to be based on
> the premise that this communication, or others like it, was somehow
> inappropriate; since we do not believe this is the case, we had no reason to
> instruct counsel to avoid such communications in the future.
here, at last, is the beginning of the truth. Esther Dyson, if not
the entire ICANN board, is unconscious of wrong-doing. She and they
have no sense of right and wrong, no moral sense, and no awareness
of the law. These are people who have been spoiled and protected all
their lives, and think they can do whatever they like, anything at
all, regardless of how it affects others, with utter impunity. They
need to be taught a lesson.
============================================================
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
============================================================
