Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[Paul Svensson <paul@svensson.org>]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

>At 10:50 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>I'm not sure anyone here has said they are angry.   I am disappointed
>>not that modifications were made but that they were made after
>>explicit assurances were given that there would be no changes.  This
>>is a bit like changing the rules in the 9th innings.
>
>No, it is a bit like a large, intractable company deciding that bad public 
>press is worth responding to.
>
>We should take some pleasure in Versign's concessions, rather take part in 
>the constant complaint-fest.
>
>
>>The issue is not whether the changes enhance Option B.  It is whether
>>it is good process to have the Board making decisions on new
>>agreements with no chance to consult on them and less than 24 hours to
>>consider them.
>
>Your statement is directly in line with the many other participants who are 
>more concerned about the precise details of process than they are about 
>making real progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.
>
>Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack of 
>real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a 
>disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.
>
>Let's stop treating this as an academic exercise in abstract governance and 
>treat it more like the pragmatic task of operations administration that it is.

Dave,
there's nothing academic about it.

If we were starting out with option B, then I could understand your view,
but we are not.  We need to compare option C with the status quo, not just
with option B, and I do agree with DPF that rushing that thru in such short
time is not in anyone's best interest, except possibly Verisign's.

	/Paul

--
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