Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #272
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 272

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:37:38 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 03:13 PM 3/11/2001, Marc Schneiders wrote:
>The point is, that ICANN is allowing Verisign to make money on the
>testbed.

By what authority can ICANN prohibit Verisign from operating a testbed?

And if they COULD prevent Verisign, what about all of the other companies 
over which ICANN has no relationship at all?

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 16:08:53 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

         I have been hesitant to enter into this debate, but I think the 
post below calls for a response.  The Names Council, entirely properly, 
focused on the point most relevant to the consideration of these contracts 
- -- that it is illegitimate for ICANN to enter into the proposed contracts, 
which embody a variety of policy reversals and innovations, without 
adequate time for consultation and without any reason to think that the 
proposals have community support.  It's worth noting that the problem here 
was created entirely by Verisign and ICANN staff, given that the proposed 
changes were under negotiation since last summer but were carefully kept 
until wraps until the last possible moment, apparently in an attempt to 
prevent the wide-ranging discussion that would have accompanied a timely 
announcement.

         The post below also suggests that the primary impact of the new 
contracts is to deprive Verisign of disproportionate, gross advantages that 
it currently enjoys.  Let me just say that if that were the case, I would 
be hard put to understand why Verisign favors the changes so strongly  . . .

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, Working Group C
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
[email-masked]

At 10:25 PM 3/11/2001 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 07:34 AM 3/9/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>>I agree that's nothing wrong in having Joe as counsel, as it would
>>not be wrong to have NC and DNSO as counsel.
>
>
>Siegfried,
>
>There is a very large difference between interacting with an individual 
>and interacting with a group.
>
>This was made abundantly clear during today's Names Council meeting in 
>Melbourne.
>
>The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and 
>timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all 
>considering the actual merits of the proposal.
>
>Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.
>
> From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not 
> be tolerated.
>
>
>>so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
>>they were made for ? because of the success ?
>
>Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of 
>the community.  As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration, 
>such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used 
>multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of 
>3-6 times higher than it should be.
>
>Another example of the gross disproportion:  Verisign has 3 TLDs when 
>other registries have (will have) only one.
>
>A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all 
>would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other 
>gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.
>
>We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the 
>proposed contract.  For example, if we reject a proposal that largely 
>"regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger 
>Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the 
>disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.
>
>Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, 
>rather than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.
>
>d/
>
>
>----------
>Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
>Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
>--
>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, 11 Mar 2001 21:18:09 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

> At 08:56 PM 3/7/2001, DPF wrote:
> >NSI/Verisign have already said that they would like an
> >extension.
> 
> That is not what they said in today's Names Council meeting.  They cited 
> the deadline and said that they would implement the requirments from the 
> current contract if the new one was not adopted by then.

I am going off their letter to Vint Cerf which is at 
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

"We also appreciate your commitment to seek formal Board approval for an 
appropriate extension of the time under the existing agreement should 
compliance with Section 23 be necessary."

DPF

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 21:40:17 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dave Crocker wrote:

> The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and 
> timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all 
> considering the actual merits of the proposal.
> 
> Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.

That is not the case at all.  The input was very clearly that it is 
unacceptable to ask for the Names Council to gain a consensus on the issue in 
such a small time-frame - a time-frame which has not been mandated by the Board 
but purely at the whim of the staff.  The fact there is a final deadline of 18 
May has been known for 18 months and if NSI and the staff wanted changes they 
should have finished negiotating them earlier.  
 
>  From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not be 
> tolerated.

Possibly you fail to grasp the significance of the ICANN bylaws with regards to 
the DNSO and the diffeerence between it and a staff member.  A staff member can 
put forward viewpoints and argue a position with no need to consult anyone at 
all.  The Names Council are not there to argue their 21 different personal 
prejudices about this proposal.  They are there to represent and articulate the 
consensus of the DNSO and their constituencies.  Now that takes time.
 
> 
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
> 
> Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of 
> the community.  

Yet the proposed changes appear to favour Verisign many time more.  Verisign 
basically get two major wins
1) Keep their registrar business (which despite falling market share is still 
the largest and incredibly profitable)
2) Gain a presumptive right to *.com for all eternity

In return they give up early *.org and *.net.  While this is of some benefit it 
is my opinion that the amounts involved here are basically chicken feed 
compared to *.com.  

> As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration, 
> such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used 
> multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of 
> 3-6 times higher than it should be.

And the proposed new contract will allow NSI to increase prices for *.com in 
future and even worse by removing a tender process in 2007, gets rid of the 
best competitive pressure one could have tpo reduce prices in future.
 
> Another example of the gross disproportion:  Verisign has 3 TLDs when other 
> registries have (will have) only one.

While it is nice to separate the three out, the price is far too high and more 
to the point it is too early to know if such a move is prudent.
 
> A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all 
> would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other 
> gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.

At the moment every other registry has zero entries in it and NSI has 20 
million or so.  While in a year or two when they are fully functioning and 
providing competition to *.com we could look at bringing them all into line, 
but to move *.com to a model which is as yet totally untested seems foolish.
 
> We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the 
> proposed contract.  For example, if we reject a proposal that largely 
> "regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger 
> Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the 
> disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.

The proposed changes give Verisign even more disproportionate advanatges and 
gives the Internet community very little.  There is no cost benefit analysis of 
the proposal, no figures on how it will affect ICANN's finances, no costs on 
whether it would mean price increases for *.org (very very possible) etc.
 
> Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, rather 
> than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.

I've re-read the proposals multiple times and I can see no appeal at all in 
them.  I think it would be dangerous to have the staff rush ICANN into 
endorsing them without proper scrutiny.

DPF

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 14:59:15 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello david,

Sunday, March 11, 2001, 1:40:17 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> Dave Crocker wrote:

>> The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and 
>> timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all 
>> considering the actual merits of the proposal.
>> 
>> Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.

> That is not the case at all.  The input was very clearly that it is 
> unacceptable to ask for the Names Council to gain a consensus on the issue in 
> such a small time-frame - a time-frame which has not been mandated by the Board 
> but purely at the whim of the staff.  The fact there is a final deadline of 18 
> May has been known for 18 months and if NSI and the staff wanted changes they 
> should have finished negiotating them earlier.  

I agree.

This new contract benefits Verisign/NSI the most.

They get to keep .com, they get to keep their registrar, and they get
to have net/org spun off as restricted TLDs that do not compete with
.com for registrations.

The changes are to the benefit of Verisign/NSI, not to the benefit of
the internet community.

The original contract should be held up.

- -- 
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, 11 Mar 2001 17:27:50 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 07:34 AM 3/9/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >I agree that's nothing wrong in having Joe as counsel, as it would
> >not be wrong to have NC and DNSO as counsel.
>
> Siegfried,
>
> There is a very large difference between interacting with an individual and
> interacting with a group.

  What???  Your kidding right?

>
>
> This was made abundantly clear during today's Names Council meeting in
> Melbourne.
>
> The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and
> timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all
> considering the actual merits of the proposal.

  First of all that is not how I read it.  Second, process is at least as
important
as substance, for without a good process, good substance cannot be
adequately dealt with....

>
>
> Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.

  Your opinion of course.  ANd maybe even the ICANN BoD's opinion.
However that does not necessarily have anything to do with accuracy or
relevancy....

>
>
>  From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not be
> tolerated.

  Well we all know that Tolerance is not one of the ICANN BoD's strong
suits...

>
>
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
>
> Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of
> the community.  As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration,
> such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used
> multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of
> 3-6 times higher than it should be.
>
> Another example of the gross disproportion:  Verisign has 3 TLDs when other
> registries have (will have) only one.

  And this is because the ICANN BoD in MDR made a gross error, that
is not Verisign's fault.

>
>
> A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all
> would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other
> gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.

  It is.  Your point?

>
>
> We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the
> proposed contract.  For example, if we reject a proposal that largely
> "regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger
> Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the
> disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.

  ICANN made this contract.  Now they are not happy with it's
provisions.  SO ICANN wants to change the terms of the contract
or let a new contract all together.  That's fine and dandy for ICANN.
But maybe not so fine with Verisign, or the stakeholder community.

>
>
> Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, rather
> than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.

Again without good process, focus on good content cannot occur....

>
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 08:08 AM 3/12/2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         The post below also suggests that the primary impact of the new 
> contracts is to deprive Verisign of disproportionate, gross advantages 
> that it currently enjoys.  Let me just say that if that were the case, I 
> would be hard put to understand why Verisign favors the changes so 
> strongly  . . .

It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract, 
in contrast with the one already in place, that so thoroughly underscores 
the LACK of propriety in the Names Council discussion.

There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially 
easy to put forward many complaints.

The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be 
constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.

Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it 
should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing 
about other organizations that are involved in line management and 
operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

The complexities and subtleties of this domain (pun intended) make it 
rather easy to have implications that are difficult to understand.  That 
does not mean they are not present.  I suggested one possibility, in terms 
of legal defensibility of the current contract.  I'm not an attorney and 
have no idea whether my legal theory has any merit; however it does make 
sense that this could be an implication.  And it would fully explain why 
Verisign would agree to the proposed contract.

Vany's suggestion, after the NC meeting, at least seeks to provide 
constructive input before the deadline.  I hope that her suggestion is pursued.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 01:48:48 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

Dear fellow GA members,

What follows is my subjective take on yesterday's events in Melbourne.

I expected that this would be a watershed ICANN meeting and it is turning
out that it may indeed be so.
The first signs are bad for ICANN and they are typical for impending
revolutions or shipwrecks:  passengers are getting off. The physical GA has
lost its spark and many of its participants. It reflects what has been
happening on the GA list: many serious and keen participants have left.
This co-incides with the explosive activity that has started in the
non-ICANN world of Domain Names in the last few weeks.(especially New.Net)

The constituencies of the DNSO are unhappy with what their Names Council can
do for them. The WG for the review of the DNSO was furious because of the
way they were not given time to do a proper job (less than 3 weeks).
My first meeting was with WG members. YJ Park, Eric Dierker and Danny
Younger were already there when I arrived on the evening of the 9th.
Danny Younger is the man who put a 60 page report about what came out of the
WG to the ICANN comment area (NC task force report comment). A report that
contains much of the substance that the NC task force report left out. This
is the new blood that has come into the discussions, thanks to the WG. 

On-line too, it was WG members who were active.
The GA looked abandoned. Gone were the traditional long row of speakers,
waiting for their turn at the microphones.
There was perhaps some built-in discouragement, since only a microphone on
the podium was available.
When Roberto asked for public comments on the Verisign deal, there was just
silence. (!)

The result of all this was, that, after YJ's report on the WG in the absence
of Greg Burton, and Danny's summary of the WG's recommendations, yours truly
ended up addressing the IDNH -part of the WG report, the current state of
organization of the IDNO (in response to inquiries by Chuck Gomez) and, of
course again the well worn arguments for the necessity of an IDNO (or IDNH)
constituency.

The Names Council was aware of the mood of the GA.

Just as I thought hat the NC would settle into its usual routines (I had
already walked out), I came back into a presentation by Joe Sims and Louis
Touton on the Verisign deal, which changed the mood of the NC members radically.
Finally it was their turn to be , uhm...  irritated.  Michael Schneider
,(sorry for my name error yesterday)  proposed a resolution, (please check
the Berkman archive for the precise text) asking the Board not to sign the
deal, until enough time had been given to the constituencies to properly
evaluate it.
Staff strongly argued against the resolution.
But the bypassing of the DNSO by the Staff was not appreciated and it gave
the NC the much needed opportunity to finally score points with their
constituents.

I have no doubt that that the aggressive attitude of the Staff (Touton: it's
either plan A, take it or leave it or plan B (falling back on the '99
agreement), take it or leave it) aggravated the NC members further.

The mood had changed. Michael Schneider's motion was passed with no
opposition and only 3 abstentions.

The NC has finally found the chance to redeem itself and it was ironic that
Peter de Blanc (ccTLD's) drew applause using the exact words that a  WG
member had posted in protest against the treatment that they had received
from the hands of the NC.  <g>

The NC report (Phil Sheppard) to the Board today did contain a reference to
the need to fix the lack of an Individuals'constituency.

More tomorrow, when the Board is expected to address the Verisign-deal
process and DNSO Review issues.

- --Joop

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 16:49:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 08:08 AM 3/12/2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >         The post below also suggests that the primary impact of the new
> > contracts is to deprive Verisign of disproportionate, gross advantages
> > that it currently enjoys.  Let me just say that if that were the case, I
> > would be hard put to understand why Verisign favors the changes so
> > strongly  . . .
>
>
> It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract,

No, quite simply it is a failure to consider including the DNSO in
significant and widespread policy decisions that got us here today. Since
this was not done, it is only proper and appropriate to allow the DNSO
time to contemplate this situation and respond appropriately.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:04:14 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 11:49 AM 3/12/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract,
>
>No, quite simply it is a failure to consider including the DNSO in
>significant and widespread policy decisions that got us here today. Since
>this was not done, it is only proper and appropriate to allow the DNSO
>time to contemplate this situation and respond appropriately.

Verisign made clear that a failure to ratify the new proposed contract, by 
the drop dead date they stated, will mean that they will implement the 
existing contract.

We can all continue to complain, but it will just run the clock out, to the 
deadline, and the community will then have to live with the existing 
contract.  Constant complaining has a peculiar kind of ego satisfaction, 
allowing us all to feel wonderfully self-righteous.

But it is not at all productive.

If the community benefits are better for the existing contract than for the 
proposed one, then fine.

My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of 
trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable 
downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the 
current contract.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:00:42 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dave,
>
>If the community benefits are better for the existing contract than for the
>proposed one, then fine.
>
>My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of
>trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable
>downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the
>current contract.
>

Personally, I prefer the old contract.
I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather, to 
keep the principle of the separation) will be more beneficial than the 
reassignment of .org.

The reassignment of .org is just a matter of "quantity", i.e. it reduces (of 
a quantity of which the significancy is doubtful) the overall market share 
of Verisign, while the current contract aims at changing the quality of the 
presence, i.e. prevent contemporary presence at the Registry and Registrar 
level for the same TLD.

This was, BTW, one of the basic principles of the contract, and to abandon 
this is a major change that has to be discussed.
In other words, if the community consensus is to take a different approach, 
fine, but this needs a major decision, and cannot be done in very limited 
time under the blackmail of a contract deadline.

Regsards
Roberto
>d/
>
>----------
>Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
>Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 18:06:10 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Dave,

Sunday, March 11, 2001, 5:04:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of
> trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable 
> downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the 
> current contract.

Let's examine this,then.

Under the new contract:
1.  Verisign gets .com forever (unless they really screw up, since the
presumption in the future will be to their benefit) and gets to keep
the #1 domain registrar in the world.

2. net/org, the 2nd and 3rd largest TLDs (which since the competitive
registrar system started have seen a tremendous growth rate) would be
spun off, but with the presumption that they would no longer be
unrestricted gTLDs, and thus not real competition for .com any longer.

Where is this more balanced than the current contract?

Please specify exactly where you think this is more balanced.

The current contract requires them to spin off the registrar, and lets
them keep com/net/org for a set period of time, after which they do
NOT have a presumption of status quo, and so thus they have to
maintain a high level of performance and service in order to justify
their keeping the registry.

That sounds a lot more fair and balanced to me, and it also sounds a
lot more likely to be of benefit to the internet community at large,
and better espouse the principles of competition in the domain market.

So back up your statements with some facts, please, Dave.

- -- 
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 03:11:12 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract,
>in contrast with the one already in place, that so thoroughly underscores
>the LACK of propriety in the Names Council discussion.
>
>There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially
>easy to put forward many complaints.
>
>The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be
>constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.
>
>Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it
>should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing
>about other organizations that are involved in line management and
>operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

My understanding of the NC decision is different: they did never say that 
they wanted to be part of the negotiation, they only objected that this 
contract implies a major shift from the current policy/assumptions (i.e. the 
separation between Registrar and Registry) time was needed *not* to discuss 
the contract, but the policy change implications thereof.

In fact, the NC never touched the merit of the contract itself (and 
correctly so, IMHO).

Incidentally, I may misinterptret your post, but I understand from the first 
sentence that you complain that the NC did don enter in the merit of the 
proposal, and in the third you complain that the NC wants to discuss the 
contract.

The NC's role is *not* to discuss the details of the proposal, but to raise 
the flag if there are changes in the policy issues involved.
And this they did.

Regards
Roberto

>it
>rather easy to have implications that are difficult to understand.  That
>does not mean they are not present.  I suggested one possibility, in terms
>of legal defensibility of the current contract.  I'm not an attorney and
>have no idea whether my legal theory has any merit; however it does make
>sense that this could be an implication.  And it would fully explain why
>Verisign would agree to the proposed contract.
>
>Vany's suggestion, after the NC meeting, at least seeks to provide
>constructive input before the deadline.  I hope that her suggestion is 
>pursued.
>
>d/
>
>
>----------
>Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
>Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 21:27:01 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Personally, I prefer the old contract.
>I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather, 
>to keep the principle of the separation) will be more beneficial than the 
>reassignment of .org.
>The reassignment of .org is just a matter of "quantity", i.e. it reduces 
>(of a quantity of which the significancy is doubtful) the overall market 
>share of Verisign, while the current contract aims at changing the quality 
>of the presence, i.e. prevent contemporary presence at the Registry and 
>Registrar level for the same TLD.
>This was, BTW, one of the basic principles of the contract, and to abandon 
>this is a major change that has to be discussed.
 >[snip]

         I believe that the proposed revisions cannot be approved by April 
1 if there is to be anything left of the notion that ICANN is a bottom-up 
organization.  But if I were to speak to the merits, I would agree with 
Roberto.  One of the reasons that the proposals have so conspicuously 
failed to win community support is that the arguments made in their favor 
are so implausible.  Maintaining the .com and .net registries together with 
the dominant registrar has plain anticompetitive potential; the fact that 
there are now independent registrars with their own market share is not 
itself a reason to abandon a procompetitive divestiture.  ICANN staff have 
urged that the benefit to this transaction lies in making the Verisign 
registry contract look like the proposed new TLD registry contracts, but 
they have not explained why (other than on esthetic grounds) we should view 
that congruence as overridingly important.  Nor does the procompetitive 
benefit, if any, of causing Verisign to spin off .org begin to outweigh the 
disadvantages the contract would bring.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, Working Group C
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
[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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:12:56 +1100
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 01:00 PM 3/12/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Personally, I prefer the old contract.
>I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather, to

Robert,

Thank you for pursuing the real content.  I am far more interested in 
getting the alternatives reviewed than in anything else.

d/

- ----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

- --
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, 11 Mar 2001 21:36:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

Joop and all remaining assembly members,

  Thank you Joop for you insights and opinions of the "Happenings" in
Melbourne.  Much appreciated.  Some of our members attending are also
exchanging perspectives as well.  We have also heard Dave Crockers
take on the NC meeting and the presentation given by Joe Simms and
Louis Touton on the Versign "Deal" which it seems that they wish to
pass through unreviewed.

J J Teernstra wrote:

> Dear fellow GA members,
>
> What follows is my subjective take on yesterday's events in Melbourne.
>
> I expected that this would be a watershed ICANN meeting and it is turning
> out that it may indeed be so.
> The first signs are bad for ICANN and they are typical for impending
> revolutions or shipwrecks:  passengers are getting off. The physical GA has
> lost its spark and many of its participants. It reflects what has been
> happening on the GA list: many serious and keen participants have left.
> This co-incides with the explosive activity that has started in the
> non-ICANN world of Domain Names in the last few weeks.(especially New.Net)
>
> The constituencies of the DNSO are unhappy with what their Names Council can
> do for them. The WG for the review of the DNSO was furious because of the
> way they were not given time to do a proper job (less than 3 weeks).
> My first meeting was with WG members. YJ Park, Eric Dierker and Danny
> Younger were already there when I arrived on the evening of the 9th.
> Danny Younger is the man who put a 60 page report about what came out of the
> WG to the ICANN comment area (NC task force report comment). A report that
> contains much of the substance that the NC task force report left out. This
> is the new blood that has come into the discussions, thanks to the WG.
>
> On-line too, it was WG members who were active.
> The GA looked abandoned. Gone were the traditional long row of speakers,
> waiting for their turn at the microphones.
> There was perhaps some built-in discouragement, since only a microphone on
> the podium was available.
> When Roberto asked for public comments on the Verisign deal, there was just
> silence. (!)
>
> The result of all this was, that, after YJ's report on the WG in the absence
> of Greg Burton, and Danny's summary of the WG's recommendations, yours truly
> ended up addressing the IDNH -part of the WG report, the current state of
> organization of the IDNO (in response to inquiries by Chuck Gomez) and, of
> course again the well worn arguments for the necessity of an IDNO (or IDNH)
> constituency.
>
> The Names Council was aware of the mood of the GA.
>
> Just as I thought hat the NC would settle into its usual routines (I had
> already walked out), I came back into a presentation by Joe Sims and Louis
> Touton on the Verisign deal, which changed the mood of the NC members radically.
> Finally it was their turn to be , uhm...  irritated.  Michael Schneider
> ,(sorry for my name error yesterday)  proposed a resolution, (please check
> the Berkman archive for the precise text) asking the Board not to sign the
> deal, until enough time had been given to the constituencies to properly
> evaluate it.
> Staff strongly argued against the resolution.
> But the bypassing of the DNSO by the Staff was not appreciated and it gave
> the NC the much needed opportunity to finally score points with their
> constituents.
>
> I have no doubt that that the aggressive attitude of the Staff (Touton: it's
> either plan A, take it or leave it or plan B (falling back on the '99
> agreement), take it or leave it) aggravated the NC members further.
>
> The mood had changed. Michael Schneider's motion was passed with no
> opposition and only 3 abstentions.
>
> The NC has finally found the chance to redeem itself and it was ironic that
> Peter de Blanc (ccTLD's) drew applause using the exact words that a  WG
> member had posted in protest against the treatment that they had received
> from the hands of the NC.  <g>
>
> The NC report (Phil Sheppard) to the Board today did contain a reference to
> the need to fix the lack of an Individuals'constituency.
>
> More tomorrow, when the Board is expected to address the Verisign-deal
> process and DNSO Review issues.
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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 #272
************************