Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
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
>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.
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.
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