Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

> However, when you
> think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
> determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
> for .org to remain in vsgns hands.

I doubt that is the desire.  But, it is at least a possible result.

> > > >   Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B"
> > > >   (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.

I don't see Sims nor the Board as pawns of Verisign.  Rather, they appear to be
dealing at "arms length."  Nor, is ICANN a known "push-over."  Its arguable
timidity gives me pause, despite my long held beliefs that:

1.  the .ORG TLD (including the data), and .COM and .NET, are either US gov.
property or are in the public domain;

2. creation of monopoly power over these domains is inherently objectionable,
especially (but not exclusively) in the hands of a commercial "exploiter;"

3. if such domains (I would deal with all others in separate categories) are to be
transferred, it should be at value through a commercially reasonable process,
preferably by bid;

4. ICANN is the entity entrusted with the husbandry of the public's interest in
such TLDs and is the best vehicle for asserting the public interest in these
assets;

5.  ICANN would prevail over any private claim;

6.  ICANN is managing the registry function for these domains (without regard to
how  others may be managed) through a service contract with NSI/Verisign which
should be open to competition at this,  the "bidding" stage; and

7.  that it is a violation of the public trust do otherwise.





--
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