DNSO Mailling lists archives


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


Thank you for circulating a draft resolution on the proposed VeriSign/ICANN agreement.  We are disappointed with it for several reasons:
First, it seems that it would have the Council assert (in the language of the ICANN Bylaws) "that the DNSO process has produced a community consensus", which is nowhere documented or substantiated.  This strikes at the heart of the credibility of the Names Council, whose primary mission is a process that produces a community consensus.  We see no consensus among the Constituencies in this area, and there may not be a consensus within many Constituencies as well ;
Second, it would have the Council assert that it "... remains concerned about the lack of earlier consultation and that being presented with one choice makes for poor decision making within ICANN.", when in fact the Council has several choices, most notably to express support for Plan A, or for Plan B or to not engage in what ICANN management asserts is not a policy matter.  
Third, it would have the Council assert that it is concerned about "...the lack of certainty in the stability of the changed competitive climate...", whereas it is clear that the global market for all domain name registrations, including both gTLDs and ccTLDs, has gotten very competitive and is getting more competitive every day.
Fourth, it would have the Council assert that it is concerned about "...the uncertainty reflecting the divestment of .net...", whereas the proposed agreement speaks pretty clearly to exactly what would happen and ICANN management's FAQ's amplify on the agreement.
Fifth, it would have the Council assert that it is concerned that "...the revised agreement seems less specific on the provision of Whois services...", whereas the proposed agreement and clarification made about it present a clearer picture of how Whois services would be addressed under Plan B than is available under Plan A. (For ICANN management's views, see their FAQ # 21).
Most importantly, we are disappointed that the proposed resolution ignores the fact that VeriSign management has made clear that it is prepared to pursue Plan A or Plan B, but that there is no Plan C, by proposing that the ICANN Board re-negotiate the proposed agreement with altogether new terms.  
We believe that the Council deserves better, and suggest that the Council act on a resolution that would permit the Constituencies to speak for themselves and have their final comments aggregated and sent to the ICANN Board by the Names Council.   This motion, which we are hereby introducing, follows. 
If this motion does not carry, then we believe that the Council needs to address the substantive question before it, which is whether it has any comments for the ICANN Board on whether the Board should support Plan A or Plan B.  Accordingly, if the attached resolution does not carry, then we will propose two other, very brief, resolutions: one endorsing Plan A (retain the 1999 agreements) and the other endorsing Plan B (execute the proposed ICANN VeriSign agreement). 
My apologies for the late introduction of this quite brief resolution.  However I believe that it does not involve any ideas that are not fairly straightforward or that have not been previously discussed.
Roger Cochetti
gTLD Constituency

GTLD Constituency Proposed Resolution  

Names Council Statement on the Proposed ICANN/VeriSign Agreement

Whereas the ICANN Board has resolved:

[01.22] that the Board requests all members of the Internet community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies  and other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March 2001; and 

Whereas the Names Council has requested the DNSO Constituencies and the DNSO General Assembly to communicate their positions on the proposed agreement, the NC resolves to communicate to the ICANN Board the individual and final positions of the DNSO Constituencies and the General Assembly (attached). 

- END -

-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 9:26 AM
To: NC (list)
Subject: [council] DRAFT NC position on Versign

Please find attached in Word a draft (and I emphasise draft) NC position on the Versign agreement. This is the input document for the NC teleconference 28 March.
I have attempted to draw together the common threads from constituency positions and the GA. Everything in the position can be changed. Items of likely controversy are marked **.
I will be off line for the next 24 hours or so - but lets keep substantive discussion for the teleconference.
Philip Sheppard
AIM - European Brands Association
9  av. des Gaulois  B-1040 Brussels
Tel +322 736 0305 Fax +322 734 6702

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