[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Mission creep and consumer protection

[Milton Mueller]

>>> "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 02/10/02 12:45PM >>>
> there is a difference between doing things in such a way that does not
> harm consumers and becoming a consumer protection agency. The first 
> is a policy issue and I'm all ears for input. The second is mission creep, 

There may be a difference, but it sits somewhere on a slippery slope.
The "transfers" task force provides a perfect example. Is Verisign
abusing its hold on registrants by refusing to let go of names that
people want to transfer? Or is Verisign protecting people against
"slammers" who try to transfer names without authorization? 

More deeply, if it is ICANN's job to create and enforce a 
vertical separation between registrar and registry in order to 
encourage "competition" and "portability" of domain names - 
a job it aggressively assumed from its earliest days - 
then along with that goes the responsibility to define a fair,
secure and efficient procedure for transfering names. 
Consumer protection has to be an element of that.

Once ICANN has gotten into the business of defining and
enforcing competition policy why shouldn't suppliers come to
it and complain that certain practices are anti-competitive?
And if suppliers can come to ICANN asking it to regulate the
industry differently (and believe me, they do it daily)
then why can't consumers come to it and complain about suppliers? 

The only problem I have with what Jamie is saying is the
"Rip Van Winkle" element: 

He is assuming that no one else in NCDNHC has noticed it. In
fact, we have been on this for some time. Some 
people are just waking up to it.

--MM