RE: [ga] Names Council vote

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

Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe the
financial impact to ccTLDs.

Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from VeriSign/NetSol
are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the registrar.
As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost per
name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
ccTLD registries.

From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease in
the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.

You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option C"
available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the board
to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to reflect a
more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.

Peter de Blanc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Andy
Gardner
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote



>"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing agreement
>or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
>existing agreement."
>
>Voting in favor:
>M. Mueller
>Vany Martinez
>YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
>M. Schneider (ISP)
>H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
>P. Sheppard (B&C)
>P. Kane (registrar)
>G. Forsyth (B&C)
>K. Stubbs (registrar)

That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest that
they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.

>Voting Against:
>Guillermo (IPCC)
>C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
>R. Cochetti (registry)
>T. Swineheart (B&C)
>P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
>E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)

The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).

Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something that
might see them with more business?

--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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