Quoting jamesguy on Sunday July 20, 2003:
| My typos may not assist.  Companies that contract with Business in the US are subject to anti-trust regulation as if they were a US company.  So if the business is performing anti-competitively then the uS government is able to investigate a party to the transaction in the uS.  auda has a registry agreement with a US business.  It has a monopoly in Australia as granted under the contract with a US business.  ICANN contracts with other organisations are currently under scrutiny by both government and anti-trust claims fliled in the US by businesses against ICANN for anti-competitive behaviour.  Should the US government discover anti competitive behaviour by ICANN and its contracting businesses then it will not hesitate to act against ICANN and the contracting parties. 

Such scenario seems really far fetched, and to me is a simplistic
scenario which isn't supported by the facts, nor really makes much
sense.

Firstly, ccTLD coordination is a function of IANA. Yes IANA is a service
performed by ICANN under contract with the NTIA - but this is seperate
and distinct from the role ICANN plays in terms of gTLDs, and in
specific reference to recent activity, Wait Listing Services. I don't
see how any of this anti-trust anti-competitive talk has to do with
ccTLD management. IANA is effectively a middle man who relays technical
requests between country code managers, the US Department of Commerce,
and the root server operators. Note the contract to run IANA is seperate
from any MoU that governs ICANN's operations in the gTLD space.

(If the point isn't clear, WLS, just like .pro, has absolutely -nothing-
to do with ccTLDs)

Secondly, the sovereign rights of countries to operate their own ccTLDs is
universally recognised within the process. 

Of course, US Government could apply pressure on Australian Government
to do things a certain way if it wanted. But that is no different from
copyright laws, trade tariffs, media ownership, or anything else. It has
nothing to do with any intrinsic properties of either the role of ICANN
or the US governments oversight of the root zone. It is also worth
noting in the ICANN world Australia takes a leading role in these issues
and is a respected participant.

It is important to remember that the US Department of Commerce is
responsible for the Internet root by convention only. If the US
Government was so bloody minded as to force its will on the DNS space
in an irresponsible way everyone could just walk away. It is very
simple for any other entity to control the root as parties only point
ultimately to the DOC controlled VeriSign root because it works, not
because it is the only possible one that can work.

Whilst your point seems to be not fearing these scenarios is ignorant,
for me the points you raise actually show an ignorance of the reality
of governments, their participation in the ICANN experiment, and how
everything actually works.

kim
--
http://www.kjd.info