Re: [nc-corp] PROPOSAL TO BUDGET COMMITTEE ON AFNIC REIMBURSEMENT FROM 2000

["Antonio Harris" <harris@cabase.org.ar>]

Roger,

While this seems perfectly reasonable (and supportable),
my question is:
Has this amount been set aside for payment, or will it
mean increasing the 2003 first semester budget ?

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>
To: "NC Budget Committee Confidential (E-mail)" <nc-corp@dnso.org>
Cc: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:19 PM
Subject: [nc-corp] PROPOSAL TO BUDGET COMMITTEE ON AFNIC REIMBURSEMENT FROM
2000


>
> You may recall that in 2000, AFNIC provided Website services to the DNSO
> without having negotiated terms or an agreement in advance and in 2001, on
> advice from the Budget Committee, the DNSO Names Council approved a
payment
> of $60K to AFNIC for the services provided by AFNIC to the DNSO during
2000.
> This payment was conditioned on AFNIC meeting three conditions, one of
which
> --according to the ICANN General Counsel, who acted on behalf of the DNSO
on
> this matter-- they never met.  The unmet condition was that AFNIC was
> obligated to turn over to the DNSO (ICANN acting as its agent) the
> intellectual property rights to the software AFNIC had developed in
> connection with AFNIC's services to the DNSO. (The software was mainly for
> online voting.)
>
> The AFNIC employee involved in the development of this software took the
> position that under French law, the rights to this intellectual property
> (the software) belonged to her, not AFNIC, so AFNIC could not assign these
> rights to the DNSO (actually ICANN, acting as an agent for the DNSO.)  The
> ICANN General Counsel, acting on behalf of the DNSO, took the position
that
> under U.S. law, AFNIC as a contractor to ICANN (which was an agent for the
> DNSO) did have the rights to the intellectual property and thus AFNIC
could
> assign those rights to ICANN (again, ICANN acting as an agent for the
DNSO.)
>
> Thus, the negotiations between the DNSO/ICANN and AFNIC has been stuck for
> two years, AFNIC has not met the third condition of the DNSO's payment to
> it, and the $60K funds have not been paid to AFNIC.  During this period,
the
> DNSO Secretariat has discontinued the use of the software that was created
> by AFNIC for the DNSO in 2000, and the issue has become essentially
> academic.
>
> Under these circumstances, I'd like to propose that the Budget Committee
> recommend to the Council at its next meeting that the Council remove any
> remaining conditions to the payment of the $60K to AFNIC for the services
> that AFNIC provided to the DNSO in 2000 and that the payment be made in
> full; and the matter closed.
>
> Since I would like to present this as a recommendation of the Budget
> Committee to the Council (the $60K exceeds our spending authority), I am
> asking for you to indicate whether you support, oppose, or abstain on my
> proposal.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger Cochetti
> Chair
> Names Council Budget Committee
>
>
>
>
>