Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> One consequence is stated below. Since NSI has agreed to divest themselves
> of the ORG and NET registries, that means that someone has to run them. Does
> ICANN take that over directly? Do they contract it out to NSI? Do they sell
> the franchise to someone else? Does someone have to buy them from NSI (if
> so, how much)?
> It gets better ... Since the registry contract comes directly from the DOC,
> can ICANN even have direct say? Will DOC award the contracts to ICANN, so
> they can sub it back out to NSI?
> We haven't even broached those issues, in the last 48 hours. Who said
> 24-hours, over a weekend, was sufficient to analyze the new contract? Not
> D'Crock, certainly.
Don't you dare stop there, what about conflict of interest issues, full APA
disclosure. Our staff has run amok.
Let us just presume that maybe just five thousand of us cared about what
transpired today. (my random count of site clickers that dealt with this issue
was closer to 300 thousand - of course that was including
email@example.com. What could Vint Cerf possibly have to do that is more
important than conducting a full meeting rather than hurrying the meeting
along. I think that every member should be really insulted at the hurry of the
meeting as though we are a sideline that interrupted Mr. Cerf's busy day. ( of
course I have been taught that our feeling about how we are treated and or
disrespected is irrelevant) If we elected this guy he would be fired. Mr. Cerf
you owe us an explanation and apology, unless of course, our opinions do not
Or as Masseurs Crispin and Crocker maintain we are irrelevant and the board has
no one to be responsible to, - well then I apologize. But I think he has to be
responsible to me and you.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html