[gnso-acc-sgb] Re: [ga] RAA

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Danny,
   
  For 'IANAL" you could of fooled the best of 'em.
   
  Let me emphasize a point here. Assuming a status quo. One has to look very 
carefully at the difference between changing something and causing something to 
change. You are very correct that we are not about changing the current RAA 
structure. But we are very much about causing change. 
   
  I am not satisfied with the current treatment of registrants or the security 
of the current RAAs.
   
  Eric

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Karl,

As I understand it, "acting as a combination in
restraint of trade" is a reference to the U.S. Clayton
Act whose section 24 "Liability of directors and
agents of corporation" states:

"Whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal
provisions of the antitrust laws, such violation shall
be deemed to be also that of the individual directors,
officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have
authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts
constituting in whole or in part such violation, and
such violation shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and upon
conviction therefor of any such director, officer, or
agent he shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding
$5,000 or by imprisonment for not exceeding one year,
or by both, in the discretion of the court."

As most of us are neither directors, officers nor
agents of ICANN, I see little risk in pursuing
discussions that might lead to others implementing
some revisions in the RAA. 

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so please seek your
own counsel.

Regards,
Danny


--- Karl Auerbach wrote:

> Hugh Dierker wrote:
> > I am hereby asking Danny and Karl to co-chair the
> RAA working group.
> 
> Given that I have a registry/registrar (.ewe) that
> has found itself 
> excluded from the only viable marketplace by ICANN,
> might one wonder 
> whether I might want polices that protect and extend
> my interests at the 
> expense of others?
> 
> Indeed, might the incumbent registrars, registries,
> and selected 
> industrial interests (e.g. trademark industry) in
> ICANN not also be 
> expected to be protecting and extending their
> interests at the expense 
> of others?
> 
> If so, should not we all be excluded not merely on
> the grounds of 
> conflict of interest and but also for acting as a
> combination in 
> restraint of trade?
> 
> --karl--
> 




____________________________________________________________________________________Be
 a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. 
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469


       
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.