DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[registrars] Fw: [ga] Report from the discussion

For those who are not following the GA list, you may be interested in the
position emerging from the GA as detailed by Roberto below.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: [ga] Report from the discussion

> Folks,
> I am preparing a summary of the discussion, as I promised to Philip, the
> Chair.
> I will say that, after thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough
> in favour to option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.
> I will obviously quote the figures from the poll (the logical equivalent
> the "show of hands" at a physical meeting), as already done in a previous
> post.
> The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:
> - "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in
> A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among TLDs,
> a better safeguard against a monopolistic position;
> - the switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
> without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
> recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
> absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
> change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
> attachments, are still unknown as today. Also, this change in policy is
> considered irreversible
> - the financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
> balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
> will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic
> is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.
> The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
> this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
> operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure
> well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN
> - the other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
> .org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of
> of uncontrolled sale of names in the TLD originally intended for chartered
> use have irreversibely polluted the namespace. Moreover, a future
> action to restore the original charter is specifically opposed by the GA,
> because it is considered contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide
> owners of .org names
> I would also incidentally note that a change in the charter of .org could
> very possible under the current contract, if VeriSign reputes this a *good
> thing*. Probably neither ICANN nor the Internet community would oppose
> enforcement of tighter controls on future registrations in .org even if
> registry stays in VeriSign hands. Of course, this should be decided by
> and known to potential investors before the .org registrar part is put on
> sale. I bet though that this will not be done, as the economical value of
> .org, and its sale price, will suffer. ;>)
> This is just the report I owe as Chair, and does not preclude in any way
> other actions, like a vote (or a straw poll) on David's comprehensive
> motion, or the presentation of a "minority position" in the form, for
> instance, of Chuck's 10-points document.
> Comments welcome.
> Roberto
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>