[council] Re: Re: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract
> > Maybe my perception of the consensus has been wrong, but what I have
> > registered is a lot of people that were complaining about the
> > that current .org registrations could have been evicted, but not a lot
> > people clearly affirming that the charter of .org shall not be changed.
> > Moreover, the very fact that people are expressing their worries about
> > eviction from .org *implies* that they estimate possible that a charter
> > be enforced.
>I've tried to find those messages, and found only one that says they
>were concerned about just the issue of existing .org holders losing
>their names compared to all of the others that opposed any change in
If I had the wrong perception, I apologize.
On one point though I insist: the focus of the current debate was on option
A vs. option B, not the change of the charter. To make a consensus call on
something that was not stated as the subject of the debate (even if it has
implications) can be exposed to criticism and dilute the value of the
position on the main statement.
>No, but it implies that the GA thinks that a change in the charter
>would be something that should be considered (not that it should be
>changed, but that it even warrants consideration) rather than the out
>and out statement that such a change should not even be open for
There's nothing wrong, once the contract issue behind us, in continuing the
thread on the .org, and ending that thread with a consensus call or a vote.
I agree with you that, if this question asked, the GA will answer for no
change in the charter (incidentally, my argumentation for not making the
consensus call is also that the question was not the one that was asked).
The good thing is that I see among the candidates for the GA Chairmanship
the master of the consensus, who drove home some important points in WG-C: I
am sure that if Jon gets elected he will do a beautiful job in fostering
consensus, and recognizing when there is some.
> > Nevertheless, we are now discussing just the VeriSign contract: there
> > still be time to discuss explicitely about the possibility of a new
> > for .org,
>Really, Roberto, are you so naive to think that if Option B goes ahead
>and the changes .org were not an implied part of the deal with
>Verisign, even if that's not what is on the papers themselves?
No, I'm not *so* naive.
But also think that with our limited resources we cannot fight *all the
battles* at the same time. The battle for .org will keep us busy for the
next months, once the contract is behind us - see, I'm not even so naive to
think that any input will change what is already a done deal :<(
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.