RE: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Philip, all,

First, thank you for the preparation of the draft version 2 resolution for
discussion on tomorrow's NC call. After reading the resolution, and reading
exchanges on it, I have a few thoughts about the resolution reflects and how
it summarizes the views of the different constituencies (or differing views
of constituencies). Would it not be better to have a short executive
statement, something such as the following:

"Pursuant to the Melbourne ICANN Board resolution 01.22, the DNSO Names
Council forward to the ICANN Board the following comments on the substantive
merits of the ICANN/Verisign amendment [list comments annexed]. In summary,
comments reflected a variety of views, with the key areas relating to
[list]. These issues should be taken into consideration by the Board."

In the current proposed draft resolution, it would seem to me that the
points contained in section 'C' could be included in issues to be considered
by the Board (in second sentence in suggested para. above). It's my
understanding that the choice is between option A or B (unless I've missed
something) Do others have a different understanding?

Anyway, this is just a suggestion, as I'm not sure from all the exchanges
the NC will have agreement on the current resolution as drafted given the
different constituency views (or differing in views, and extent to which
they prevail over option a or b).

Thoughts?

Theresa



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
Philip Sheppard
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:06 AM
To: NC (list)
Subject: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign


Following some feedback please find attached v2 of a draft NC position on
Verisign.
Changes from v1 are highlighted using the Word tracking function. We will
use v2 as the base document for discussion tomorrow March 28.

Philip Sheppard