Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Kent,
I see that the "fairy tale" is developping. I acknowldge that the word
may be hurting to you and I apologize, but it is being now commonly
used and the soap script you propose boils down exactly to that.

If I may review...

On 15:46 18/03/01, Kent Crispin said:
> > I do agree with you on the first part, but going further with the
> > reasonment, I would assume that one person with the experience of Vint
> > would have found a polite way to make the remark, would he have been
> > willing to make clear (to Verisign and to the Internet community) that
> > the future of .org is only determined by ICANN, and is not part of the
> > negotiation.
> >
> > Having not seen that, I may suspect that this *is* indeed part of the
> > deal.
>
>But in my estimation that suspicion simply doesn't meet the "common
>sense" criteria.  Vint is chairman, indeed, but he isn't the entire
>board, and he simply can't guarantee how the board will vote.  Neither
>can the staff.  Mr Sclavos would be an idiot to believe that either Vint
>or the ICANN staff could guarantee such a thing, and common sense tells
>me that Mr Sclavos is not an idiot.  Therefore, nobody on either side of
>the negotiation can do much more than take the contracts at face value.

Mr. Sclavos not being an idiot and Vint being the tricky Chairman of iCANN
I doubt Mr. Sclavos writes a long letter like this one and Vint publishes and
leaks it without good reasons. I ran and posted an analysis of this letter and
I suppose there is much more in it that what this quick analysis shows.

IMHO this letter is for Mr. Sclavos to put Vint in front of a fait accompli 
and
Vint puts Stratton Scalvos in front of an other fait accompli. In 
publishing and
leaking the fax, he puts an hidden negotiation with the Staff into full light.
Again, please consider the letter of Esther Dyson to Ralph Nader. Esther
looked for allies, Vint plays it alone and count on his "opposition" to rise
the hell on the issue. This is why you miss information as his move is also
to squeeze your channels.

> > > >   The fact that I did not see so far neither a formal letter, nor 
> even a
> > > >   statement in Melbourne on the subject, makes me think that ICANN
> > > >   agrees with this approach.
> > >
> > >Of course.  It's a no-brainer, and is exactly what people on this list
> > >and elsewhere are clamoring for.
> > >
> >
> > You mean that of course Verisign decides the future of .org?
> > I think we have a misunderstanding here. I must have not been sufficiently
> > clear.
>
>Could be, I don't recall from the context above.  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 beg your pardon?

> > > >   Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B"
> > > >   (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.
> > >
> > >Are you misreading what the above letter says?  Clearly, Mr Sclavos is
> > >concerned that ICANN will throw a bunch of people out of .org, and he
> > >has been reassured that won't happen.  This is precisely what people
> > >have been clamoring for.  Why on earth does that make you suspicious?
> > >
> >
> > The fact that ICANN will throw people out of .org is so absurd, from my
> > point of view, that I was not even taking this into consideration, and I
> > tend to believe that neither did Mr. Sclavos.
> > What I am fearing is that Verisign is willing to grant the $$$ only 
> subject
> > to conditions on the future charter of the registry and/or the
> > organizational type of the (future competing) Registry.
> >
> > Verisign uses a language in the letter that assumes that this is a 
> deal, and
> > states that this has been discussed.
> > Or do you think that one of the reasons Mr. Sclavos is CEO of Verisign and
> > we don't is that he writes one thing and implies another? ;>)
>
>I think Mr Sclavos dictated that letter to a secretary mainly as a
>polite message to the chair of the board of a company with whom his
>company has been dealing with.  The letter is not a contract, and indeed
>it is quite possible that Mr Sclavos dictated it in a hurry.
>[...]

ups! Now if I read you well, this is where the fairy tale is at its apex,
Mr. Stratton Sclavos sent that long written fax telling VP Vint Cerf
what Verisign had decided with Staff, as a pure courtesy because he
had 5 minutes to spare before receiving Andrew McLauglin. So the
disputed points by Touton, Sims, half the DNSO are just
discrepancies because Stratton had no time to reread the text (which
was most probably actually written by a secretary).

This shows the consideration you have for the iCANN and for the
professionnalism of Mr. Stratton Sclavos if you believe 1.5% of that
story.... and for the Members of this list if you believe the will buy that!

> > You rightfully said "[it] had been perverted". I lament that too. But this
> > cannot be fixed anymore.
> > It would be utterly unfair to apply a more restrictive charter after the
> > Registry has been "perverted" for some time: we have to live with that.
>
>No, I don't agree that it would be unfair to apply a more restrictive
>charter.  That depends entirely on the content of the charter, not on
>the act of applying a charter.

You say the iCANN and VeriSign must go by the facevalue of the contract
they negociate, .org registrants must go by the whimsical decisions of a
non profit to be created they never contracted with.

Kent, I always took you for a professional. You are much above that
kind of post.

> > > > I believe that that the only
> > > > sensible thing to do is to let it continue as is. If we really think
> > > > that a specific TLD has to be reserved to non-commercial
> > > > organizations, we just have to create one for the specific purpose,
> > > > instead of redesigning .org.
> > >
> > >That's fine, and if that's what the Internet community wants, that is
> > >indeed what they will get.  As I read the contract, there is nothing at
> > >all that determines what the registration policies for the new registry
> > >would be.
> >
> > Correct.
> > I was talking, though, about the statements on the letter about ICANN's
> > intentions, that have not been corrected by ICANN so far.
>
>It's a letter, not a contract.

This is the intent of the parties.

> > >Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ICANN staff
> > >was trying to get what they considered the best possible deal for the
> > >internet community out of those discussions, and let the community
> > >decide whether they were good enough.
> > >
> > >[...]
> > >
> > > >   The fact that the Registry that will inherit .org must be a 
> non-profit
> > > >   is spelled out in 5.1.4.
> > > >
> > > >   IANAL, but I believe that if ICANN wants to change this, Verisign may
> > > >   refuse to pay the $5M.
> > >
> > >I believe that the phrase "ICANN, at its sole discretion...", trumps that.
> > >
> >
> > Not really.
> > The phrase, conveniently cut in your quote, continues, and reads "ICANN in
> > it sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future
> > operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor
> > operator of the .org registry.".
> > My understanding is that the $$$ are conditional to the fact that the new
> > operator is non-profit.
>
>That is not the way I read it at all.  It seems fairly clear to me that
>using the funds to establish the endowment is at ICANN's sole discretion
>-- if ICANN decides to use the funds for something else, that is within the
>meaning of "at its sole discretion".  My best interpretation of this
>clause, in fact, is that ICANN can do whatever it wants with the money.

This is a new point. Is that part of the negotiation? Are you here speaking
on behalf of Mr. Sclavos, or is this a response by the Staff they want you
to try on VeriSign?

>Moreover, as has been pointed out, the non-profit status of the
>registry operator is completely independent of the policies of the tld.

This is unclear in the document. Is this again a new proposition through
you or a request from the Staff? Anyway both (an endowment and the
confirmed independance) would certainly not address the issue as far
as Staff and iCANN is concerned.

As far as VeriSign is concerned it would only confirm that VeriSign is
ready to pay M$200.000 and accept .org competition to stay a Registrar
and to secure the DN market.

As far as Staff is concerned (I suppose you here speak on behalf
of the Staff, I am afraid that the idea of them controlling $ 205.000.000
is frightfull to me...

But this proposition of yours means that this discussion at GA has
some positive impact and positions would change..

Jefsey



--
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