Hi Evan,

After a lengthy, well-written and detailed account of how ICANN actions have benefited various parties without curtailing monopoly power and thus harming the public good...

That is kind. Thank you.

... you conclude by a curt advocacy to "overlook" this.

Ah! Bad writing on my part. I meant "don't overlook the benefit to Versign, and the process which made it possible, when looking at the transition, there is much more than a single 'code of conduct' question involving a former Chair in the pursuit of material interest." If Byron wants to chase Peter with pitchforkes and torches, fine. What I want is for the Department of Justice to write the Department of Commerce asking "got competition yet?", and for the Department of Commerce to write the new Chair that competition policy is mandatory to implement. This assumes that the new Chair is as indifferent to competition, and as deferential to Verisign's interests, as his predecessor, a fact not in evidence. I hope that clarifies, and of course the same "to solve a problem in the American administrative law context, use American administrative law tools" advice applies to correspondents in the US, as much as it does to those not watching an artifical political gong show featuring "debt ceiling" ballroom dancing 24x7. Eric