RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I agree that 30 days is adequate. However, that should be 30 days from this
(melbourne) meeting.
For whatever reasons, the issue is now clearly on the table, and there is
widespread awareness.

To get 30 days requires an act on the part of ICANN, VRSN, and US DOC. Right
now we are talking about April 1, and that is not 30 days. As I said in a
previous post, to the GA list:
------
Speaking personally the (new) deal may have some merits. Of course, any deal
that took months to negotiate can hardly be reviewed in a few days. I
disagree with the "throw away" remark "There is never enough time"

Speaking as a NC member (ccTLD), we have an obligation to advise the BoD on
policy. No matter what anyone else has said, in my opinion there is a policy
shift here. Again, I am not saying it is a "bad deal", just that it is
clearly a policy shift.

Process is important, especially in these days of intense ICANN scrutiny.

Therefore, I will argue for an extension of 30 days, which, I am sure if
VSGN and ICANN agreed on, would be accepted by US DOC.

That would provide a short, but reasonable time to evaluate, discuss with
our constituencies, provide inputs to the BoD, and respect the ICANN
process.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to go with the new deal rather than
maintaining the "automatic status quo" of the existing deal, there would be
an opportunity for the larger Internet community to "buy into" the benefits
of the new deal. This action would vaildate the legitimacy of the ICANN
process, instead of destroying it.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to retain the status quo, I can not
see that another 30 days delay in the implimentation could possibly have a
great downside.

peter de Blanc

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:52 PM
To: 'Dave Crocker'; Patrick Greenwell
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg; svl@nrw.net; svl@nrw.net;
apisan@servidor.unam.mx; Amadeu@nominalia.com; karl@CaveBear.com;
jcohen@shapirocohen.com; phil.davidson@bt.com; f.fitzsimmons@att.net;
ken.fockler@sympatico.ca; mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com;
mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com; hans@icann.org; shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr;
andy@ccc.de; junsec@wide.ad.jp; quaynor@ghana.com; roberts@icann.org;
helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de; linda@icann.org; vint cerf; ga@dnso.org;
ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org; core@corenic.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions


In my own opinion as I have expressed individually and in public meetings
here in Melbourne, Dave is correct in his conclusion that the real choices
are between the two agreements.  For those that insist this is a
policy/process issue, is 30 days not an adequate amount of time for review
and comment?

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dhc2@dcrocker.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 8:04 PM
To: Patrick Greenwell
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg; svl@nrw.net; svl@nrw.net;
apisan@servidor.unam.mx; Amadeu@nominalia.com; karl@CaveBear.com;
jcohen@shapirocohen.com; phil.davidson@bt.com; f.fitzsimmons@att.net;
ken.fockler@sympatico.ca; mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com;
mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com; hans@icann.org; shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr;
andy@ccc.de; junsec@wide.ad.jp; quaynor@ghana.com; roberts@icann.org;
helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de; linda@icann.org; vint cerf; ga@dnso.org;
ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org; core@corenic.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions


At 11:49 AM 3/12/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed
contract,
>
>No, quite simply it is a failure to consider including the DNSO in
>significant and widespread policy decisions that got us here today. Since
>this was not done, it is only proper and appropriate to allow the DNSO
>time to contemplate this situation and respond appropriately.


Verisign made clear that a failure to ratify the new proposed contract, by
the drop dead date they stated, will mean that they will implement the
existing contract.

We can all continue to complain, but it will just run the clock out, to the
deadline, and the community will then have to live with the existing
contract.  Constant complaining has a peculiar kind of ego satisfaction,
allowing us all to feel wonderfully self-righteous.

But it is not at all productive.

If the community benefits are better for the existing contract than for the
proposed one, then fine.

My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of
trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable
downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the
current contract.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

--
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

--
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