DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign

My comments to revised version
A. The Names Council resolves to communicate to the ICANN Board the following statement.
** 3. That key areas of concern are:
I would include: "The negotiations with a single gTLD registry"
C. The NC proposes that a win-win position for ICANN and the internet community would be for the Board to request an extension of time from the US Department of Commerce and to re-negotiate terms of the revised agreement with the following provisions:
I don't think ICANN has the option to re-negotiate anything. ICANN signed a contract (option A) and is committed to accept it. VERISIGN (kindly?) offered to review that contract and developed a different option (B). So, if we are asking for best conditions to Verisign competitors, do we think Verisign will accept? I do not. I think they will remain, in the worst of the cases, with option A, and nothing will happen.

Oscar Robles

Philip Sheppard wrote:
Following some feedback please find attached v2 of a draft NC position on Verisign.
Changes from v1 are highlighted using the Word tracking function. We will use v2 as the base document for discussion tomorrow March 28.
Philip Sheppard
NC on verisign.doc


                Oscar A. Robles Garay
Centro de Servicios de Informacion y Registro en Internet
   Direccion de Informatica     ITESM, Campus Monterrey
   NIC-Mexico  Top Level Domain .MX  http://www.nic.mx
orobles@nic.mx   Tel. +52(8)387-5346  Fax. +52(8)328-4208

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