DNSO Mailling lists archives


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


Let me comment about the first reason.

I understand your concern, but every body in the NC expresses his/hers opinion, and whether it is personal or a constituency consensus, it is own the NC representative. He/She will have to explain to his/hers constituency why. We couldn't do it in the best way, and this is not our fault.

We have two choices (not that A or B thing):
	- Say something, at least in a personal way
	- Say nothing, because lack of time and procedural reasons, and keep doing anything stronger than discussing in the NC.

I take the first one.


On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Cochetti, Roger wrote:

> Phillip-
> 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  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
> 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.
> 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 >>>