Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #263
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 4 2001            Volume 01 : Number 263

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:09:19 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:

>> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
>> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
>> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.
>
>The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.

>    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
>    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
>    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
>    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
>    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
>    10, 2001."
>
>Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
>approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
to be a Registrar.

But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.

>> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
>> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
>> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
>> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
>> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
>> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
>> 
>> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
>> why bother having one. 
>
>The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
comments page on a website.

>> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
>> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
>> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
>> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.
>
>That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
>NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
>has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
>they are behind on that, as well.

Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
ICANN.

>> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
>> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  
>
>ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
>can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
>your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
>tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

NSI are the ones who stand to lose the registry if there is no change
to the agreement.  It is very much in their interest to have ICANN
give this matter serious consideration rather than by trying to rush
things through risk rejection.

As for ICANN being resource-constrained I would suggest that is
partially of their own making.  Their dealings with the ccTLDs whom
they expect to fund a third of ICANN have ben less than impressive.
ICANN needs the ccTLDS far more than they need ICANN.

>> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
>> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
>> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
>> 
>> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
>> be rushed through in a month.
>
>ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
>disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
>there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

There can easily be more time by a two month extension to the deadline
in the existing contract.

>It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
>Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
>point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
>fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
>it is the best course of action.  

My preferred option is to extend the deadline for two months.  If it
is not extended then the next preferred option is not to undertake a
change of this magnitude and let the contracts expire on May 10.
After all this was the original plan.

But if neither side are pigheaded on this and allow ICANN and
especially the DNSO adequate time to consider the pros and cons of the
proposed changes, one may well find that there are merits in the
proposal.  I would very much like to have the DNSO get input from
competing Registrars for *.com about how they feel about the proposed
changes.

>If you think so, then by all means
>send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
>complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
>that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
>forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
>think they like it any better than any one else. 

There is no emergency except a self imposed one.  The Board it seems
have been totally unaware of the staff negotiations and you are right
they might be unhappy also.  They should not accept that the only two
options are the status quo or agreeing to the entire package of
amendments.  The Board should take the time to consult the DNSO and if
necessarily negotiate a different set of amendments with NSI if that
is what is warranted.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:08:37 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 12:08:28PM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 19:08 2/03/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> >
> >The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
> >
> 
> As it will always be, when real important deals are negotiated under a
> deadline that was known in advance.
> 
> David is right. The "fait accompli" atmosphere around the Verisign/NSI
> deal, commentators and Wall Streets' reaction and all that is a bit
> disturbing.

Verisign/NSI/SAIC/etc are clever, resourceful, and, it would not be too
much of an exaggeration to say, ruthless.  There is no doubt in my mind
that they have manipulated the timing and the negotiation ground rules
for this proposal to their benefit, and there is absolutely no doubt 
that they would only do this if they saw some advantage for themselves.

But -- I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but people simply don't
seem to grasp the implications -- that is the game that ICANN is forced
to play.  If NSI has a proposal that they want to discuss privately,
ICANN does not have the option of ignoring them.

If this proposal dies (which it very well could), then the result is 
that Verisign will divest their registrar business (or, more likely, 
work some clever deal, like for example keeping the actual business, but 
magically convert it into a domain reseller using another registrar), 
and get the .com/.net/.org registries in effective perpetuity.

So the tradeoff, as I see it, is between these two choices:  

a) NSI gets the .com/.net/.org registry business forever, with the
registrar business spun off in some way that will doubtless be lucrative
to them; or

b) NSI gets the .com registry in perpetuity, keeps the NSI registrar
business in its current firewalled state, splits of .org quickly, and
.net at a later date.

The exact management model for .org is, in my view, a complete red
herring -- the important point is that it won't be run by NSI. 
Regardless of any offhand comments, it will take a year of work to 
define the exact policies under which .org would be run, and by then there 
will be more gTLDs and the landscape will have changed dramatically.

> There is no question that there is angst and anger.
> One loose remark about ICANN going to restrict .org again and insufficient
> reassurance about rights of existing Domains is sparking  a fury of
> hundreds of postings to the ICANN public forum.

I would term it more an interesting example of mob psychology.

[...]

>  here's a substantive question:  
> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
> management?

The obvious answer, one that requires no further information to realize,
is that ICANN can't make any guarantees, because the exact policies that
would exist in the proposed circumstance would be worked out in a long
and painful public debate.  My intuition about the result of that
debate, for what it's worth, is that the only substantive difference
would be that it would become hard for very obvious commercial entities
to register in .org, and that perhaps there might be some special
dispensation in the UDRP for names registered in .org that would give
preference to non-commercial uses.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:09:04 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] yet another idea to improve knowledge...

At 16:17 3/03/01 -0500, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:
>
>I personally would put the attention to the Verisign/NSI contract first as
>the priority, with the new TLDs (unchartered) next. Other things can
>probably be delayed, from my perspective, but I'm interested in how others
>think about this? 
>

I would agree with this. These are landscape (status-quo) maintaining
developments, instead of the promised landscape-altering ones and they are
closely connected. 
There is also the question of the line that ICANN will now take with
regards to the "inclusive" root and the flow-on effects of  ICANN itself
becoming the registry for .org, already announcing registry policies.

I also read your idealized vision of the GA with feeling, Marilyn! <g>
But look inside most parliaments and you see the same childish posturing
and point-scoring.
The difference lies in the current powerlessness of the GA. Even the
chair-candidate it chooses must be "elected" by the NC.

- --joop 

The Polling Booth
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:22:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various  forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Joop,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 3:08:28 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  here's a substantive question:
> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
> management?

That's not enough.  The issue is that it is ENTIRELY inappropriate to
put into place restrictions on an existing TLD in such a fashion,
regardless of if the existing domains are exempted in any fashion.

If they want a non-commercial, or a non-profit, or some other
restricted type TLD, then they need to create it from scratch.  Making
this type of a major change in the policy of an existing TLD is
entirely inappropriate, and it was irresponsible of them to even
consider it, much less to bring it out into the public forum.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:46:33 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:
> 
> >> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
> >> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
> >> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.
> >
> >The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:
> 
> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.

Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple.  Note 
that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning 
the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.

> >    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
> >    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
> >    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
> >    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
> >    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
> >    10, 2001."
> >
> >Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
> >approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 
> 
> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
> to be a Registrar.

You have missed something crtically important, I believe.  NSI *will* sell 
the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will 
effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in 
perpetuity.  NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire -- 
that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar 
has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its 
value is problematic.  Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint 
Cerf: 

    Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
    of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
    operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
    2007. 

    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 

No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.

> But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
> be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
> Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.

You are overlooking the fact that there are other parties in this who
might raise serious objections to the NSI agreement continuing on a 
minute past May 10 -- other registrars and potential registries have a 
large stake in all this.

[...]
> >
> >The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
> 
> Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
> as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
> comments page on a website.

Yep, it is.  There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and 
if I were you I would be composing it right now.

> >> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
> >> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
> >> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
> >> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.
> >
> >That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
> >NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
> >has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
> >they are behind on that, as well.
> 
> Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
> deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
> ICANN.

There is no such thing as a simple agreement when the stakes are as high
as they are.  It might be possible to negotiate something, but on the
other hand, it might not. 

> >> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
> >> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  
> >
> >ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
> >can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
> >your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
> >tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 
> 
> NSI are the ones who stand to lose the registry if there is no change
> to the agreement.

Sorry, you are lost in the weeds.  NSI isn't going to lose the registry 
under any circumstances.  That is simply not the issue.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 03:14:43 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] yet another idea to improve knowledge...

Dear Marylin,

One question:
"
".com" represents 80% of the DNs. No doubt that such a gTLD has an
international impact, with much more registrants in every country with
.com than with their national ccTLD. While iCANN wants the approval
of the foreign governments before signing a contract with their national
ccTLD manager, why do they not even consider getting their opinon on
NSI as a gTLD manager, either through a direct mail or through the GAC?

I note that in the same time:

- - iCANN tries to enlist governments to support its "market" monopoly
- - iCANN pushes the DoC to take away the foreign TLD management
   industry by unilateral decision concerning ".biz", without even
   consulting  the GAC members.
- - has decided the delegation of the same ".biz" TLD without even
   considering the interests of the State of Belize which tried to develop
   its ".bz" TLD in using its similarity with "biz" as ".tv" does.
"
Jefsey

On 22:17 03/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>WE, in the GA, would prepare questions,
>even perhaps drafting them ahead of time so the chair could read them and
>save some time, and ensure that they are asked in a civil and civilized
>manner, and so that the remote participants could submit questions with
>sufficient probability of being included in the batch of questions,  and we
>could have a productive and useful hour...

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:55:31 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various   forums, we can as k substantive questions

I seem to recall the there is such a thing as "grandfather" those that are
in place, freeze for any new, and then start anew, as of a date certain.
Gee, isn't that a time honored Internet behavior?

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:22 PM
To: Joop Teernstra
Cc: Kent Crispin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Joop,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 3:08:28 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  here's a substantive question:
> What guarantee will ICANN give the Individual Registrants in .org that
> their existing Domains will not be affected by the change in Registry
> management?

That's not enough.  The issue is that it is ENTIRELY inappropriate to
put into place restrictions on an existing TLD in such a fashion,
regardless of if the existing domains are exempted in any fashion.

If they want a non-commercial, or a non-profit, or some other
restricted type TLD, then they need to create it from scratch.  Making
this type of a major change in the policy of an existing TLD is
entirely inappropriate, and it was irresponsible of them to even
consider it, much less to bring it out into the public forum.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 19:02:44 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various   forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 6:55:31 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I seem to recall the there is such a thing as "grandfather" those that are
> in place, freeze for any new, and then start anew, as of a date certain.
> Gee, isn't that a time honored Internet behavior?

I understand that any such policy would grandfather existing
registered domains.

However, I do not find that to be a justification for such a major
change in policy for the TLD.

A change in policy such as this at this late date is simple not
appropriate, regardless of the grandfathering of existing domains and
their uses.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:04:08 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums,  we can as k substantive questions

Dave, consulting with registrars in "interesting" but  not sufficient.  It
is the users/registrants who have the most at stake, not just those that
wish to compete against NSI. I'm surprised you overlooked their interest.  

Time is always of essence. Let's try to get comments from all concerned in a
timely manner. It's not clear that we can't.

Certainly, there are many questions. Let's see if they can be answered.

If they can't, then it is legitimate to rail against the timelines.
Otherwise, failure to work hard to get questions, and answers, is our own
failure, not some one else's. \

Have you started generating a list of questions about he proposal? I am just
getting started myself, and could use input from knowledgeable folks,
outside of my own resources,  to make sure that the list of questions is
sound. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:09 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:

>> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
>> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
>> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.
>
>The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.

>    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
>    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
>    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
>    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
>    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
>    10, 2001."
>
>Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
>approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
to be a Registrar.

But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.

>> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
>> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
>> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
>> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
>> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
>> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
>> 
>> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
>> why bother having one. 
>
>The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
comments page on a website.

>> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
>> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
>> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
>> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.
>
>That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
>NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
>has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
>they are behind on that, as well.

Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
ICANN.

>> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
>> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  
>
>ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
>can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
>your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
>tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

NSI are the ones who stand to lose the registry if there is no change
to the agreement.  It is very much in their interest to have ICANN
give this matter serious consideration rather than by trying to rush
things through risk rejection.

As for ICANN being resource-constrained I would suggest that is
partially of their own making.  Their dealings with the ccTLDs whom
they expect to fund a third of ICANN have ben less than impressive.
ICANN needs the ccTLDS far more than they need ICANN.

>> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
>> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
>> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
>> 
>> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
>> be rushed through in a month.
>
>ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
>disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
>there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

There can easily be more time by a two month extension to the deadline
in the existing contract.

>It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
>Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
>point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
>fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
>it is the best course of action.  

My preferred option is to extend the deadline for two months.  If it
is not extended then the next preferred option is not to undertake a
change of this magnitude and let the contracts expire on May 10.
After all this was the original plan.

But if neither side are pigheaded on this and allow ICANN and
especially the DNSO adequate time to consider the pros and cons of the
proposed changes, one may well find that there are merits in the
proposal.  I would very much like to have the DNSO get input from
competing Registrars for *.com about how they feel about the proposed
changes.

>If you think so, then by all means
>send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
>complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
>that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
>forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
>think they like it any better than any one else. 

There is no emergency except a self imposed one.  The Board it seems
have been totally unaware of the staff negotiations and you are right
they might be unhappy also.  They should not accept that the only two
options are the status quo or agreeing to the entire package of
amendments.  The Board should take the time to consult the DNSO and if
necessarily negotiate a different set of amendments with NSI if that
is what is warranted.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:07:00 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:46:33 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:

>> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
>> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
>> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.
>
>Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple.  Note 
>that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning 
>the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.

Well NSI will be gambling with a lot at stake if they refuse to agree
to a one off 2 month extension to the deadline.  We have
representatives from NSI here so perhaps they could comment whether as
a matter of good faith they would be amenable to such an extension so
that the DNSO can properly consult on the issues raised.

>> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
>> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
>> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
>> to be a Registrar.
>
>You have missed something crtically important, I believe.  NSI *will* sell 
>the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will 
>effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in 
>perpetuity.  

No no no.  I have just reread both the original agreement and the
proposed change.  Under the original agreement NSI only get the
registry extended until November 2007. Section 22(a) provides that
there will be a successor registry and 22(b) merely says NSI is not to
be disadvantaged in tendering for this by virtue of being the
incumbent.

So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.

Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal.  D(4) states that
there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.

So in fact it is only if ICANN agrees to these changes that NSI will
have a presumptive right to *.com in perpetuity.

Now that *may* be a good thing but I'd like more than a few weeks to
consider things before signing away *.com for ever.

>NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire -- 
>that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar 
>has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its 
>value is problematic.  Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint 
>Cerf: 
>
>    Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
>    of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
>    operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
>    2007. 

Thanks for this.  At the moment though I am seeing lots of benefits
for NSI - they get to keep being a Registrar plus they gain the rights
for *.com pretty much for ever.  I am not seeing a lot of benefit for
the Internet Community.

By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
reductions from the current US$6.

>    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
>    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
>    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
>    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 
>
>No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
>forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
>on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.

Under the current agreement they can keep all three until 2007 but
beyond that it is a open slather for who becomes the registry.  Not I
do like the idea of having *.org and *.net go out to other registries
earlier which is why I do not want to see the proposal rejected out of
hand.  But by God I don't want the price to be gifting *.com to NSI
for ever and ever.

>> But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
>> be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
>> Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.
>
>You are overlooking the fact that there are other parties in this who
>might raise serious objections to the NSI agreement continuing on a 
>minute past May 10 -- other registrars and potential registries have a 
>large stake in all this.

They may.  They need to quickly decide what course of action is their
most preferred option.  I would think that rather than having *.com
registry locked away for ever and ever they would prefer a 2 month
extension to existing agreement.

>[...]
>> >
>> >The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
>> 
>> Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
>> as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
>> comments page on a website.
>
>Yep, it is.  There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and 
>if I were you I would be composing it right now.

Can you please (serious request) point to the URL where the Board have
asked the Names Council for input and where the Names Council have
asked for input?  Is the GA the preferred form of input or is it the
web based forum or will there be a dedicated working group discussion
or should we just e-mail our thoughts to all 19 Names Council members?

>> Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
>> deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
>> ICANN.
>
>There is no such thing as a simple agreement when the stakes are as high
>as they are.  It might be possible to negotiate something, but on the
>other hand, it might not. 

Indeed but I would like to see ICANN at least try and report if they
can.  This in itself could affect how people vote on whether to accept
the staff proposal.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:32:03 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] yet another idea to improve knowledge...

Let's see. Let me identify the questions which are relevant to the issues at
hand, and respond to them:  

Actually, I think (but NSI/Verisign could verify) that it is about 85% of
the registration in .com, .net, .org. But the percentage of growth is
increasingly outside of those names and the ccTLDs are growing in exciting
and interesting manners.

So, what is your question? If it is: given that NSI/Verisign, with .com,
.org, .net has approximately 80% Plus of the registrations, what is the plan
to seek international consultation with those that register? Now, that seems
to be a question about how does ICANN ensure that there is public awareness
of this process and situation?  A fair question.

But, I reread your question, and it appears to be: how does ICANN ensure GAC
review? I find it interesting that you are so focused on governments,
Jefsey, rather than those who are customers and registrants.  Can you
clarify why you are so concerned about the various governments'
perspectives? In any case, I would assume that ICANN can talk to the GAC in
their meeting and seek their input at that time.   

I've always assumed that consultation takes place, but your focus on the GAC
views seems to indicate that you have particular concern about their
interests. Industry always thinks it helpful to have someone looking out for
government's interests. In the past, we've thought that they did that pretty
well for themselves. What's happened that you have thought that they need
more help?

:-)     

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #263
************************