Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #264
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Sunday, March 4 2001            Volume 01 : Number 264

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

Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:35:45 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various   forums, we can as k substantive questions

Not clear that I could agree with you, William, since I would think that
industry stakeholder consultation and input would be needed on that topic.

So, maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but more consolation is
definitely called for! Ever the Internet way, right/

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:03 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Joop Teernstra; Kent Crispin; [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: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:39:16 +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 22:04:08 -0500 , you wrote:

>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.  

Indeed I did not mean to.  I am just interested at the staff assertion
that there have been no complaints from Registrars and hence no
problems with allowing NSI to remain both Registry and Registrar.

>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.

I am wary that just because one can in a mad rush assemble comments on
a proposal, that one should accept such major proposals being dumped
on us at such a late stage, when no attempts at all have been made (it
seems) to do say a two month rollover.

>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. 

Okay.  I will not be at Melbourne but hope to participate online but
here are some of the questions which occur to me.  They arise is order
as I go down the agreement.

1) The intent is said to place NSI as *.com registry on the same
footing as all other registries.  Is this not rather premature as the
other registries are not even up and operating yet? 

2) Can the Registrars confirm that there have been *no* substantial
complaints about access to the Verisign registries

3) On what basis do the staff conclude that "the importance and value
of the separation of ownership of VeriSign's registry and registrar
businesses ... had diminished quite significantly over the 15 months
since the original registry agreement was signed".  Has any survey
been done or how was this conclusion reached?

4) What are the current number of registrations in *.org and *.net so
one can judge how financially viable separate registries will be.  The
$5 million offer from Verisign gratefully noted.

5) Why not remove Verisign from being able to tender for *.net after
1/1/06 if we really want to separate the TLDs out?

6) Is the $200 million offer to help fund research and development
activities large enough in return for effectively being guaranteed to
be the *.com registry (unless they stuff up badly) for ever and ever.

7) Are there any circumstances under which ICANN should be signing
away the right to tender out the operation of *.com in 2007?
Certainly not before we have even seen what impact the new TLDs may
have on it.

8) In section D(7) it is stated that Verisign funding of ICANN would
be made the same as other registries.  How much do Verisign currently
pay ICANN and how much would they pay under this change (assuming
current financial models) in the next three years?

9) Which Board members sanctioned the staff to negotiate this proposal
with Verisign?  

10) WIll the Board guarantee that all existing registrants in *.org be
allowed to maintain their current domains rather than the two years
the staff negotiated?  

11) If Verisign is given perpetual right of renewal over *.com, how
does ICANN see there being any pressure to reduce fees to Registrars
over time as economies of scale continue to apply.

That's all for now.

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 19:40:35 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various    forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 7:35:45 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Not clear that I could agree with you, William, since I would think that
> industry stakeholder consultation and input would be needed on that topic.

> So, maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but more consolation is
> definitely called for! Ever the Internet way, right/

Sorry, Marilyn, but any solution which provides for such a major
change in the registrant policy for a TLD is not the "Internet way."
If you do not see that such a "solution" is inappropriate, then I
suggest you take another look at it.  The existing use for .org has
been long held and well established.  Such a major change at this late
stage is irresponsible, and is most certainly against the "internet
way."

- -- 
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 23:00:10 -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

Who are tee NSI representatives you are referencing? When negotiations are
underway, typically, employees aren't able to provide the kind of comment
you have suggested.

???

- -----Original Message-----
From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:07 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 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
- --
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 05:00:46 +0100
From: Robin Miller <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Helping the nomination process along [was: Proposalfor chair   election rules for the GA]

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Pray, Your  Politeness,  tell us then what this "process" needs.  More delay?
> 
> What are you afraid of exactly? 

that someone will nominate him rofl

Robin
- --
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 17:05:32 +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 23:00:10 -0500 , you wrote:

>Who are tee NSI representatives you are referencing? When negotiations are
>underway, typically, employees aren't able to provide the kind of comment
>you have suggested.

Mr Gomes had made some useful contributions in the past.  As it
happens I have found the answer to my question.  In their letter to
Vint Cerf Verisign have stated that if ICANN do not agree to the
proposed amendments they would like ICANN to extend that separation
date of 18 May 2001 by a short period.

So we seem to have an easy solution here.  Verisign have already said
they would like an extension if the proposed amendments are not
accepted so they are most unlikely to complain about an extension to
consider the proposed amendments.

DPF

>???
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:07 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 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

- --
[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 20:06:45 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various  forums, we can as k substantive questions

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> 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?

Not since the IAHC. That's sarcasm, right?

Christopher

- --
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 23:19:45 -0500 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[6]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various   forums, we can as k substantive questions

Let's not rule out taking broad consultation on this. Especially if the .net
could be spun off as a competitor ...I am not expressing an opinion, merely
suggesting that one should be open. And that the views of those who are
registrants, plus those who might register are as/more relevant than those
of us who are merely "watching". 

:-)  Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:41 PM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: Joop Teernstra; Kent Crispin; [email-masked]
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 7:35:45 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Not clear that I could agree with you, William, since I would think that
> industry stakeholder consultation and input would be needed on that topic.

> So, maybe you are right, maybe I am right, but more consolation is
> definitely called for! Ever the Internet way, right/

Sorry, Marilyn, but any solution which provides for such a major
change in the registrant policy for a TLD is not the "Internet way."
If you do not see that such a "solution" is inappropriate, then I
suggest you take another look at it.  The existing use for .org has
been long held and well established.  Such a major change at this late
stage is irresponsible, and is most certainly against the "internet
way."

- -- 
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 20:34:31 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[8]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various     forums, we can as k substantive questions

Hello Marilyn,

Saturday, March 03, 2001, 8:19:45 PM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> Let's not rule out taking broad consultation on this. Especially if the .net
> could be spun off as a competitor

Assigning those TLDs to new registry operators is one thing, making
them anything but the unrestricted gTLDs they have been for so long,
is entirely a different matter, and should  be ruled out completely as
even a consideration.  Nothing else makes any sense at all.

- -- 
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 23:37:16 -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

Chris, the IAHC was hardly broadly consultative. So, no, it wasn't sarcasm.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:07 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
forums, we can as k substantive questions

From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> 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?

Not since the IAHC. That's sarcasm, right?

Christopher

- --
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 20:43:18 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[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 didn't mean the IAHC as an entity, I meant not since the approximate timeframe
that the IAHC was created.

In other words, the answer, since around 1997, is a resounding "no."

Nothing has been "grandfathered" unless the self-appointed board at the time
has wanted it so. Certainly not by consensus, and certainly not the "Internet Way."

If it wasn't sarcasm, then it was rose-coloured.

Christopher

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Christopher Ambler'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 8:37 PM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

> Chris, the IAHC was hardly broadly consultative. So, no, it wasn't sarcasm.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ambler [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:07 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
> forums, we can as k substantive questions
> 
> 
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
> > 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?
> 
> Not since the IAHC. That's sarcasm, right?
> 
> Christopher
> 
> --
> 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 22:08:39 -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 04:07:00PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> 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.

Note I said "effectively".  Read 22 (e).  If NSI is not selected, they 
can take ICANN to court.

> 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.

fat chance.

> 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.

It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.  
The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity".  But it is 
legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.

> 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.

Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
good names are taken.  The fact is, you are just guessing.  *No one* --
not you, not me, not Verisign, not ICANN -- can do any more than hazard
guesses about the competitive situation 6 years from now.  It is very
important to keep in mind that the market share of the NSI registrar has
suffered an amazing drop -- from 100% to like 40% in less than 2 years.

In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that 
Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they 
want to give it up.

> >    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.

I'm sorry, but that just seems incredibly naive to me...

[...]

> >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? 

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00881.html

> 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?

Louis Touton sent a notice to the NC; the NC has to decide the best 
course. 

- -- 
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, 4 Mar 2001 02:24:50 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions

Marilyn Cade:-
I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

- - Seconded
Joanna Lane

- --
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 23:42:55 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

> Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
> at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
> recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
> good names are taken

(all the good names, taken) * $6/year = you do the math.

Christopher

- --
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 22:21:58 +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 22:08:39 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 04:07:00PM +1300, DPF wrote:

>> 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.
>
>Note I said "effectively".  Read 22 (e).  If NSI is not selected, they 
>can take ICANN to court.

I am aware of that.  But changing the language from a "shall not be
disadvantaged by being the incumbent"to "shall have a presumption
their contract will be renewed" is a pretty damn significant change.  

Under the existing contract, even if the registry remains with
Verisign, it means they have to sharpen their pencils enough at each
renewal so that they can have a case to argue that they should keep
it.  Merely having an open tender (even one likely to stay with the
incumbent) will encourage the incumbent to make as good an offer as
possible.

>> 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.
>
>fat chance.

That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
the competitor.

>> 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.
>
>It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.  
>The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity".  But it is 
>legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.

They don't say in perpetuity"but by not having an expiry date or
maximum number of renewals, this combined with a "presumption" of
renewal will have much the same effect.

What worries me about this proposal is it is effectively a one way
step.  Sign this and ICANN have committed themselves for good - no
turning back.

>> 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.
>
>Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
>at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
>recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
>good names are taken.  The fact is, you are just guessing. 

Indeed - I am well aware it could dry up.   That is why I am hesitant
about endorsing a deal with a "presumptive"right of renewal for ever.

> *No one* --
>not you, not me, not Verisign, not ICANN -- can do any more than hazard
>guesses about the competitive situation 6 years from now.  It is very
>important to keep in mind that the market share of the NSI registrar has
>suffered an amazing drop -- from 100% to like 40% in less than 2 years.

Personally I don't think it is at all amazing.  It was the whole point
of bringing in competition.  

>In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that 
>Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they 
>want to give it up.

There we disagree.  If there was no chance of losing it under the
status quo why would they be so willing to spend literally hundreds of
millions of dollars and give away *.net and *.org so that they gain a
"presumptive"right to renew it.

>> >    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.
>
>I'm sorry, but that just seems incredibly naive to me...

I may over state that it will be quite open slather but if Verisign's
bid to keep it is significantly inferior to their competitors then
they will run that risk of losing it.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #264
************************