Re: [alac] ALAC position on ICANN/Verisign deal?

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's send it.  It's short and to-the-point.  Maybe (but I doubt it) 
it will even get some attention.

--Wendy

At 02:49 PM 2/20/2006, Bret Fausett wrote:
> I don't know understand ICANN Staff's fear, but one of the 
> possibilities mentioned by the General Counsel on an earlier call 
> with the registrars was that an ICANN defeat in the Verisign 
> litigation could mean the end of ICANN. I think that's okay. We 
> don't need ICANN if it can't perform it's basic functions.
>
> I'll add your proposed intro. Anyone else? We should send this today.
>
>           Bret
>
> Annette Muehlberg wrote:
>
> > I agree with the statement, but have a question on the last paragraph:
> >
> > What "part of the legal foundation on which ICANN was built" would 
> > be "questioned or eroded"?  Does that need clarification?
> >
> > And what do you think of adding half a sentence to your 
> > introduction (see below) or do you think this is too much of 
> > reducing our concerns to just two factors?
> >
> > ciao
> > Annette
> >
> >
> >
> > > Dear Dr. Cerf:
> > >
> > > The At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") has carefully reviewed 
> > > and considered the revised agreements between ICANN and Verisign 
> > > and does not believe that the revisions address the serious 
> > > concerns of registrants previously described by the ALAC in both 
> > > its written submissions and its meeting with the Board in Vancouver.
> >
> > To ensure competition and protect registrants from monopolistic 
> > pricing, the ALAC recommends that the Board take the following action:
> >
> >
> > >    1.   Reject the proposed settlement agreement;
> > >    2.   Proceed to trial with Verisign; and
> > >    3.   Begin a renewal/rebid process for .COM in accord with the 
> > > renewal provisions of the existing agreement.
> > >
> > > The ALAC understands that ICANN Staff believes that one of the 
> > > litigation risks to ICANN is that the legal foundation on which 
> > > ICANN was built will be questioned or eroded. This is a risk we 
> > > believe is worth taking. An ICANN that cannot ensure competition 
> > > and protect registrants from monopolistic pricing is not an ICANN 
> > > worth retaining.
> > >
> > > Respectfully submitted,
> > >
> > > At Large Advisory Committee

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/