| <<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
 Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
To: vcerf@MCI.NET, svl@nrw.net, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com,       karl@CaveBear.com, jcohen@shapirocohen.com, phil.davidson@bt.com,       f.fitzsimmons@att.net, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca,       mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, hans@icann.org, shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr,       andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp, quaynor@ghana.com, roberts@icann.org,       helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de, linda@icann.orgSubject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisionsFrom: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 09:57:43 +0100Cc: ga@dnso.org, ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org, core@corenic.orgSender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org 
 
Vint,
Thanks for the clarification below, but it seems to me that the new contract 
with Verisign, if ratified by the Board, will be a major change in policy.
The idea of renouncing to the principle of separation Registrar/Registry, 
even if it may justified by the new conditions (which I personally do not 
believe, but that's a personal opinion), should be discussed by the DNSO.
The issue came up today in both the GA and the Name Council.
Going back just to the previous ICANN meeting, I remember you making the 
remark, a propos the IOD application for .web, that it was an "old way" to 
conceive the management of a TLD, with no separation between Registry and 
Registrar.
What has changed in few months, and why the DNSO has not participated to the 
cahnge in polcy?
I join the many people that today were asking for the DNSO to be involve, 
and I will bring this message tomorrow to the Open Forum.
I would appreciate other statements on the list on this subject.
Thanks
Roberto
>
> >last not least
> >3.) Splitting com-net-org registry / registrar. I simply refuse to
> >believe that the board is willing to cancel that part of the contract.
> >The argument astonishing : One of the main intentions of the whole
> >construct was to weaken the power of an monopolist (NSI), now we
> >seem to see that it works (does it really?) we try to disrupt that
> >process instead to be happy that it works as it was intended to do.
> >I might be worng but I could not find that the matter was brought to
> >NC and DNSO...
>
>Nothing has been decided here at all - there is a proposal on the
>table and the Board has yet to discuss it - though it will do so
>during the Australian Board meeting this week. I don't believe any
>decision will be made during this board meeting but because of
>the various timing elements in the equation, the Board may have
>to make a decision by the end of March or the opportunity may be
>lost.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
 <<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
 |