[ga] yet another idea to improve knowledge...

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Let me try again with an idea or two:  Like most of you. I'll read, but I'll
end up with a lot of questions. I'd like to ensure that there are many/ample
opportunities to have civil discourse about questions. I see no need to
assume anything at this time about any outcome.  

IF it turns out that sufficient consultation time isn't possible, after we
go through Melbourne, then anyone can recommend that the board not take
action, and seek extensions.

I personally would put the attention to the Verisign/NSI contract first as
the priority, with the new TLDs (unchartered) next. Other things can
probably be delayed, from my perspective, but I'm interested in how others
think about this? 

The DNSO, the ASO, and the PSO will all have demanding schedules to provide
review and consultation. The Constituencies need to consider revising their
own agendas to allow discussion. Folks, this is after all reality.
Emergencies and changed agendas DO happen. 

I'm not happy with the time frame. I'm pretty sure that ICANN isn't either.
But I do not doubt that they are hard working, committed, and overworked.  

So are many of us. How about less time focused on what we can't do, and
resent, and more time on seeing what we can do, and then taking a decision
about a recommendation from that?

One thing I've noticed over the years: a common goal in a divided group to
try to work on something can also be a cohesive and coalescing
event/activity. Imagine that: the GA with an agenda, and an agreement to
offer constructive comments, not just complain about process.

Now, I haven't asked, but I bet that if the chair invited ICANN to give a
short overview and answer questions, they would do their best to attend.
Then, let me have an online fantasy: WE, in the GA, would prepare questions,
even perhaps drafting them ahead of time so the chair could read them and
save some time, and ensure that they are asked in a civil and civilized
manner, and so that the remote participants could submit questions with
sufficient probability of being included in the batch of questions,  and we
could have a productive and useful hour...

WOW. Now that's a GA I'd love to attend.

Okay, enough fun. 

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 10:08 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions


On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 , you wrote:
> 
> >
> >I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
> >these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items,
the
> >TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
> >items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
> >taken.  
> 
> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.

The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
    10, 2001."

Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

> >The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
> >can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
> >Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  
> 
> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
> 
> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
> why bother having one. 

The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.

That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
they are behind on that, as well.

> >Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect
to
> >be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
> >documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  
> 
> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  

ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

> >I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized
manner,
> >that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
> >possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
> >status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
> >contract.  I think that is what is proposed.
> 
> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
> 
> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
> be rushed through in a month.

ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
it is the best course of action.  If you think so, then by all means
send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
think they like it any better than any one else. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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