Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
Sunday, April 01, 2001, 11:34:29 PM, DPF wrote:
> My initial feel is that B is improved by these changes but
> nevertheless it would be ir-responsible to insist on changes being
> voted on within 24 hours. Verisign should not ask ICANN Board to
> force itself to do so. If Verisign agreed to last minute changes then
> as a corollary it should also agree IMO to a time extension so that
> they can be considered fairly.
Let's deal with the facts here.
These "changes" are being made so that the ICANN board can "approve"
the contract, and point to those changes as a justification for
overriding the advice given to it by the DNSO Constituencies, the DNSO
Names Council, and the DNSO General Assembly.
As it stood, the BoD could not approve the contract and maintain any
semblance of bottom up consensus, but by making a couple of relatively
minor changes at the last minute, they give the "appearance" of
accommodating the community's concerns, while still taking an action
that really is against that community's general consensus of what
They did this with the demands by the DoC that they deal with the BWG
and the ORSC, making "token" changes for nothing but appearances sake.
That is what has happened here.
History shows that this is SoP for ICANN.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html