<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
I've read the documents by now, in detail.
I've paid close attention to the different issues raised by the different
constituencies, and while I can't being to speak for anyone else, I see
considerable merit to the stakeholder community in the WHOIS commitments.
Several constituencies (ISP, BC, and ISP all discussed these issues and
raised a concern about WHOIS). Some of the questions/issue re the
discounted pricing which was raised by the Registrar constituency was also
addressed in the clarification letter. There is also an acknowledgement of
the concern of registry/registrar cross-subsidization (wrong term, I know...
sorry, it's late here...) I think that was at least acknowledged...And, I
take it seriously, and it appears that the board does as well. Dealing with
that is a "future" issue, since it depends on behavior going forward....
Getting the ability to penalize Verisign/NSI for abuses was one of the
benefits of Option B, as I recall. Once abuses are documented and presented
to the ICANN staff. I think, though, that the board and staff are likely to
be receptive to such reports, given the reference for that need from several
constituencies.
Stratton raises a good point to note that what is agreed to by Verisign/NSI
must be required of other registries as well. I think that the staff and
board should make sure that this happens, with the caveat that the dominant
player often gets "different" treatment, UNTIL they are no longer dominant.
"Different" means structural safeguards and perhaps a bit of extra
reporting...
I'm disappointed to hear from some that they are angry about the
modifications being made to Option B. These seem to me to be responsive to
the comments presented by the NC and the constituencies. I never thought
that the Constituencies, or the NC should micro-manage the contract
negotiations, but should instead offer policy advice, which they did, in my
view.
I wish the board well tomorrow a.m. in its decisions. It's a tough situation
to figure out what enables competition, ensures stabilization of ICANN, and
gets the rest of the work it faces moving: like the new gTLDs, multi-lingual
issues, any role it has in ENUM, etc.
I can see merits and defects in both options... but these changes offer some
benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.
Just one person's view....
whew! time for me to sign off! I just realized how late it is.
Regards, Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:Eric@hi-tek.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:53 AM
To: Patrick Corliss
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [GA]
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
Ok so we modify this a little - Dear Senators, Congressmen, DOC and the
Public at
Large, and to the Press.
Dear Board Members,
Any attempt to approve or agree to the new agreement with Verisign is
hereby
objected to in full.
At this time we do not object on the substantive issues as we have not
had
time
to review and respond appropriately.
We do object on the procedural issues of time and manner. Any agreement
entered into in this manner does not have the support of the General
Assembly and
should be viewed with distrust.
Members of the General Assembly
Perhaps this is a good start?
Sincerely,
We all want ICANN to work or we would not be here, so our letter must
combine our
righteous indignation with the truth that by all of your hard work, this is
working.
Every time I turn around I am faced with this groups abilities "If you can
meet
with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same"
Kipling
Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Hi Marilyn
>
> > I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to
the NC
> > requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> > recommendation. I don't know yet.
> >
> > But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders,
or
> > are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
> >
> > I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.
>
> I have read the three letters and it is very clear to me from the
construction
> of the first letter that ICANN staff have renegotiated the deal in a way
that
> was said to be impossible. ICANN has also fudged the issue to suggest
that
> these are minor, procedural changes.
>
> If the changes are minor and of no substance then they should not affect
the
> decision. However, these changes are clearly stated as having been made
with
> the intention of making Option B more attractive.
>
> So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with
no
> time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
> organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.
>
> Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:jandl@jandl.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:28 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org; david@farrar.com
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> >
> >
> > This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign. Is there
> > any way we can motion, second and present to the board?
> >
> > > Most people here should have seen the announcement that despite
> > > explicit statements that no changes were possible to the Verisign
> > > agreements ("it was A or B - there is no C") ICANN management and
> > > Verisign have negiotated some changes which they have just announced.
> > > The Board now has a full 24 hours to analyse these new agreements and
> > > vote on them with no input from the DNSO.
> > >
> > > I beleive Verisign should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to the 18
> > > May deadline to allow consideration of these new changes. Yes
> > > Verisign said they would not agree to an extension previously but they
> > > also said that no further changes would be considered.
> > >
> > > I am extremely nervous about the possibility of ICANN Board having to
> > > vote on such huge and critical issues with less than 24 hours to
> > > analyse the changes.
> > >
> > > DPF
> > >
> > >
> > > From: icann-announce@icann.org
> > > To: "ICANN Announcement List" <icann-announce@icann.org>
> > > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:38:02 -0700
> > > Subject: [icann-announce] Proposed Revisions to ICANN-VeriSign
> > > Agreements
> > >
> > > On 1 March 2001, ICANN posted a proposal to revise the agreements
> > > between ICANN and VeriSign. The announcement appears at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
> > > >. ICANN has posted a web page, with links to relevant source
> > > documents and a series of FAQs about the proposal at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm>.
> > >
> > > Among the items just posted is correspondence from yesterday and today
> > > between Stuart Lynn (ICANN's CEO) and Stratton Sclavos (VeriSign's
> > > CEO) regarding additional text changes to the proposed agreements and
> > > related undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign. The URLs for this
> > > correspondence are:
> > >
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-31mar01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > >
> > > ###
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
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
>>>
|