Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> 
> >> 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:
> 
> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.

Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple.  Note 
that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning 
the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.

> >    "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). 
> 
> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
> to be a Registrar.

You have missed something crtically important, I believe.  NSI *will* sell 
the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will 
effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in 
perpetuity.  NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire -- 
that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar 
has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its 
value is problematic.  Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint 
Cerf: 

    Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
    of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
    operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
    2007. 

    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 

No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.


> But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
> be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
> Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.

You are overlooking the fact that there are other parties in this who
might raise serious objections to the NSI agreement continuing on a 
minute past May 10 -- other registrars and potential registries have a 
large stake in all this.

[...]
> >
> >The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
> 
> Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
> as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
> comments page on a website.

Yep, it is.  There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and 
if I were you I would be composing it right now.

> >> 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.
> 
> Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
> deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
> ICANN.

There is no such thing as a simple agreement when the stakes are as high
as they are.  It might be possible to negotiate something, but on the
other hand, it might not. 

> >> 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. 
> 
> NSI are the ones who stand to lose the registry if there is no change
> to the agreement.

Sorry, you are lost in the weeds.  NSI isn't going to lose the registry 
under any circumstances.  That is simply not the issue.

-- 
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