Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val
The point I was trying to make is that when many within ICANN begged
for even a 30 day extension to allow more time for consultation the
very clear message was that this is not possible and we will stick
with the status quo if no decision by this time. We were told even a
delay of some weeks would be unfair to Verisign's plans.
The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
this will be granted. Why the different treatment between requests
from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:59:38 -0400, Chuck Gomes wrote:
>Because May 14th falls after the May 10th deadline that is in the current
>agreements, an extension is essential.
>From: DPF [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 8:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 19:28:54 -0400, you wrote:
>>The United States Department of Commerce is promising the ICANN it will
>>decide by May 14, 2001 whether to ratify controversial new contracts
>>that would, among other things, allow domain name giant Verisign to
>>retain its powers over .com for at least 6 more years. However, ICANN's
>>decision and request for approval may yet be countermanded as several
>>ranking U.S. politicians seek a formal investigation of ICANN's
>The US Govt has also asked NSI for an extension to the existing
>agreements - something we were told here was impossible and would
>never be agreed to. Who wants a bet that NSI and ICANN agree to such
>This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
>Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html