[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

And so it ends...

> Subject: Re: And so it ends...
> From: David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org>
> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 15:42:01 -1000
> Cc: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> Robert,
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > Abssolutely *NOT*.  their unique status derives from the actions of a 
> > contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S. 
> > Gov't.  'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting on 
> > its behalf, nor to anyone operating a government-sanctioned monopoly.
> As far as I am aware, the USG contract is with ICANN, not ARIN (see  
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/iana/ianacontract_081406.pdf, 
> section C.

Correct.  _They_ can can delegate "as they see fit", with no requirement
to provide competing alternatives.  ARIN, the delegatee, is not the 
'monopolist' -- the party controlling the situation -- they are just a
delagatee of the party who has the monopoly position.  Any action to
"enforce" competition would be against the monopolist -- the authority
who _delegates_ operations, ICANN.  Which doesn't fly for the reasons

Basically, you cannot force a RIR to share with others that which they get
from somebody else.  To enforce competition, you would have to force the
party who 'controls' the distribution to also provide the thing to the
aforeentioned 'somebody else' (singular or plural).  Which one cannot 
do under Sherman, when that party is a government actor.

> >>         What about the other RIRs worldwide?
> > They're outside U.S. jurisdiction.  Sherman Acg 2  is irrelevant to 
> > their operation.
> The question was about other RIRs.  Other countries have 
> anti-monopoly/anti-cartel laws.

Irrelevant and immateral to the operation of ICANN.  <grin>

ICANN "controls" everything, under the auspices of the U.S.G.  They have
issued 'territory-protected franchises' to a limited number of parties.

You cannot force the frachisee to 'share' their franchise.  You have to go
after the franchisor, and force -them- to issue competing franchises.

Nothing prevents anyone in the 'territory' of one franchisee from attempting
to do business with a diffrent franchisee.  

*IF* the franchisees agree among themselves not to deal with anyone that is
not within the limits of their protected territory, _that_ could be a 
proscribed anti-competitive practice *by*the*franchisee*.

IF, on the other hand, the 'grant of franchise' allows them to 'sell' only
to parties in the defined territory, a refusal to deal with an extra-
territorial party is -not- an anti-competitive act by the franchisee.
In this situation, one would have to act against the franchisor.  Who is
exempt as a governent actor.

> Regards,
> -drc