[Politech] PFF's Bill Atkinson: ICANN is "out of control, " VeriSign harmed

From: Declan McCullagh (declan@private)
Date: Mon Aug 30 2004 - 16:38:03 PDT


While it is true that PFF gets money from VeriSign, it also may be
true that ICANN is no angel and that its regulatory views have been
suffering from creeping featurism. Bill's criticisms of ICANN seem to
have some grounding in reality; unfortunately, he didn't address the
(valid) criticisms of SiteFinder too.

-Declan

---

http://www.pff.org/weblog/archive/2004_08_01_archive.html#109389785619869051

VeriSign v. ICANN

ICANN's interference with VeriSign's introduction of new domain name
system (DNS) services has been a source of tension for years. It came
to a head in February when VeriSign filed a seven-count lawsuit
against ICANN, alleging that ICANNprovisions of ICANNte court where
the remaining claims can be tried. He held that VeriSign's detailed
allegations that competitors had captured ICANN's decision-making
process were insufficient to establish an antitrust conspiracy, since
VeriSign failed to allege facts establishing that competitors
"controlled" or "dominated" ICANN's board.

I recently wrote a paper arguing that ICANN's regulatory excesses
stifle innovation in domain name services, and that reliance on
competition, rather than regulation by ICANN, would best serve
consumers. Matz takes a rather narrow view of the corporate
decision-making process, especially in light of the specific evidence
of competitors' key role in many of ICANN's decisions, and even a
statement by former ICANN president Stuart Lynn that ICANN's process
was "too exposed to capture by special interests" (Judge Matz
dismissed this by observing that Lynn had not actually "admitted" that
the Board had been captured). But an antitrust claim is admittedly a
blunt instrument for curbingICANN's abuses. Press reports indicate
that VeriSign will not appeal this decision (which would add further
to the delay in introducing new services), but rather will pursue its
state law claims.

As VeriSign's complaint and numerous critiques confirm, ICANN is out
of control. It was created to promote competition in domain name
services (DNS), given a very narrow regulatory mandate, and directed
to meet basic standards of fair and open decision-making. It has
adopted an increasingly expansive view of its regulatory mandate while
providing virtually no procedural protections to affected parties. And
its processes are clearly subject to capture. As a result, ICANN is
delaying indefinitely the introduction of beneficial services.

Fortunately, Judge Matz's decision leaves VeriSign free to enforce
ICANN's obligations under the Registry Agreement and related
obligations in state court. ICANN's position clearly raises risks of
regulatory abuse. But the Registry Agreement also contains provisions
designed to prevent regulatory abuse by limiting ICANN's power and
restricting the manner in which it can be exercised. ICANN should be
strictly held to the letter and spirit of these protections.

- posted by Bill Adkinson @ 8/30/2004 04:19:24 PM
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Aug 30 2004 - 17:10:05 PDT