basically no monopoly. the user is wrong with respect to his references.
but clearly understand ICANN has no control over the root.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:20:42 -0700
From: Drew Lehman - DigitaEye Designs <dlehman(_at_)DIGITAEYE(_dot_)COM>
Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications
<CYBERIA-L(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)AOL(_dot_)COM>
To: CYBERIA-L(_at_)LISTSERV(_dot_)AOL(_dot_)COM
Subject: Re: [CYBERIA] ICANN Reform suggestions by Markle Foundation
To the contrary. Monopolies exist with respect to markets, not
with respect
to products. Thus one may have a monopoly on silver in Peru,
or in the sale
of tobacco to minors. (I believe Friedman would agree - a one-line
definition does him no justice.) One may define a market as
"the universe of
people not able to or interesting in evading ICANN" and it would
be a useful
definition if it corresponded to something in the real world.
Which it does.
Why does it matter if ICANN is a monopoly anyway? Their charter
is not to oversee THE root, (Network solutions has most of this,
followed by a recently named contractor for .org) but the orderly
dissemination of TLDs and addresses. This could easily cover
the idea of multiple roots. The question STILL remains.. how
is this to be done. I think we can all agree that it is not
currently being done, but I have yet to see alternatives either.
**********************************************************************
For Listserv Instructions, see http://www.lawlists.net/cyberia
Off-Topic threads: http://www.lawlists.net/mailman/listinfo/cyberia-ot
Need more help? Send mail to:
Cyberia-L-Request(_at_)listserv(_dot_)aol(_dot_)com
**********************************************************************