Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

[Kendall Dawson <kendall@obs-us.com>]

At 03:15 PM 3/15/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>I tend to think that just a vote (x people for "A", y for "B", ...) will 
>not have weight. Maybe a common argumented position on "why" we like "A" 
>better than "B" would have more impact.
>
>Anyway, for the time being, it seems that some consensus is being 
>expressed on the maintenance of the statu quo. What I would like to bring 
>is an argumented position on "why" we like better this option.

Hi Roberto,

I support "option A" for the following reasons:

----------------------

1) As in individual (non-commercial) domain name holder, I do not have a 
representative to voice my opinion on the NC. I feel that ICANN has not 
given us a clear statement that it will not try to retroactively change the 
.org TLD. I feel that we, as individuals, could eventually be forced to 
lose domains that we have invested years of building up. If the Board were 
to step forward and clearly state (in writing) that "we will not change the 
existing structure of .ORG" then I would be more inclined to listen to 
"option B". But, as it stands, the .ORG issue is too important to me to 
risk changing the status quo.

----------------------

2) The possibility of VeriSign outsourcing the operation of the registrar 
and customer service to itself. During the Public Forum on March 12th in 
Melbourne, Brett Fausett asked the Board this question:

On its conference call with financial analysts earlier this year, Verisign 
provided an overview of some of the things it was considering in the sale 
of the registrar business. One option presented on the call would have 
allowed the new purchaser of Verisign's registrar business to outsource all 
registrar and customer service functionality back to Verisign for a fee. In 
other words, under that scenario, the only thing that would likely change 
after the separation of the registry and registrar would be Versign's 
profit margin -- the technical services, customer support, trademarks, and 
all other aspects would remain the same.

If the new agreement is not approved, is that kind of arrangement a 
realistic scenario under the existing agreement? Under ICANN's view, what 
constitutes "legal separation" under the November, 1999 agreement? Is there 
disagreement between ICANN and Verisign on what the terms of a "legal 
separation of ownership" should look like?

This is a major concern -- IMHO the Board never provided a satisfactory 
answer to this question. One of the stated goals of ICANN is "to promoting 
competition". If VeriSign sets up a separate, but wholly owned subsidiary, 
and then outsources the registrar and customer services to this new company 
then it will do nothing to increase competition. The company that assumes 
the role of registrar and offers customer service should be completely 
unrelated to VeriSign.

----------------------

3) I feel that ICANN and VeriSign have had ample time to present this 
agreement to the DNSO and the Internet users as a whole. But, they did not 
present this data for review until March the 1st. ICANN and VeriSign seem 
in a hurry to to pass this agreement as quickly as possible - and this 
haste concerns me. Many of the NC members, Board members were surprised by 
this announcement and wanted more time to review it:

Schneider: 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-031101b&start=03-40-28
De Blanc: 
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-031101b3&start=08-15
Roberts:


----------------------

4) VeriSign and ICANN are not open to revising the proposal in light of 
public comments, DNSO comments etc..  Joe Sims and Louis Touton keep 
insisting that there is no time for revision and there are no other choices 
besides Option "A" or Option "B" --

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-031101b&start=03-36-40

Yet, a few minutes after this statement, Louis Touton contradicts the 
statement and admits that there is another alternative:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=icann-031101b3&start=06-27

----------------------

 From what I have seen - I do not see any benefits to the Internet, 
non-commercial businesses, or private domain name owners. And, nobody has 
come forward with solid reasons why Option "B" is better or why we should 
accept the new agreement between ICANN and VeriSign.

Best Regards,

Kendall


--
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