On 07/28/2010 02:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 28 July 2010 17:31, Karl Auerbach<karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
Changing the ICANN business model of an annual fee per name is not something that I could support.
Neither I nor .ewe will pay ransom for the privilege of engaging in a lawful business. ICANN, and those incumbent vendors who participate in ICANN, ought to be wary that such demands might eventually bring legal action on the grounds of a combination, contract, or conspiracy to restrain trade. We like to whine about how it would be bad if Comcast or AT&T or some other large provider were to demand money for people to view certain web sites or transport certain kinds of traffic. And we dump on China for filtering the net for their own reasons. Yet we seem to be engaged in intellectual dissonance when we say that ICANN can demand money for people to engage in lawful internet business. --karl--