Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #274
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 274

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 07:35:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Thomas and all remaining assembly members,

  Nice and interesting quote.  However it does not ring true.
Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2001-03-11 09:57:43 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> > Going back just to the previous ICANN meeting, I remember you
> > making the remark, a propos the IOD application for .web, that it
> > was an "old way" to conceive the management of a TLD, with no
> > separation between Registry and Registrar. What has changed in
> > few months, and why the DNSO has not participated to the cahnge
> > in polcy?
>
> Actually, I'd like to quote Hans Kraaijenbrink (in the Scribe's
> words) on this one:
>
>         "IOD goes against everything we ve worked on the last two
>         years they join registrar and registry, and they have a high
>         price."
>
> See also:
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111600.html>
>
> Kraaijenbrink's contribution is the last paragraph of D.5.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                     <[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

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 08:00:28 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 02:59:15PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> I agree.
> 
> This new contract benefits Verisign/NSI the most.

That may or may not be true, but it is in fact totally irrelevant.  It
is very important to understand this:  It is quite possible that the 
new arrangement favors NSI, but is still the best for the Internet 
community.  This is NOT a zero sum game, and it is important not to let 
one's dislike of Verisign be the only deciding issue.

Please understand: I am *NOT* a fan of NSI. 

> They get to keep .com, they get to keep their registrar,

...under a set of restrictions, a material breach of which would throw 
the contract open to rebid.  Moreover, with the old contract they will 
almost certainly keep all three of .com,.net, and .org.  It is true 
that there is a rebid in 2007, but the terms of the contract include 
such factors as experience in running the registry, and the terms also 
contemplate only a singly award for all three TLDs.

>  and they get
> to have net/org spun off as restricted TLDs that do not compete with
> .com for registrations.

No, that is not true.  .org and .net are spun off with NO contractual
restrictions.  ALL the discussion of what might happen to them is
speculation, and ICANN has made it clear that NO changes in policy 
would be made unless the community decided it. (*)

> The changes are to the benefit of Verisign/NSI, not to the benefit of
> the internet community.
> 
> The original contract should be held up.

Perhaps.  I haven't made up my mind on the issue -- what I really would 
like is that no single entity should control more than one of a 
registry or registrar, but that is not one of the options -- the very 
worst that NSI can do is still awfully good for them.

(*) "Louis said in his posting that the issues about the future of .org
are policy decisions that should go through the consensus process."
 -- Joe Sims, in http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00901.html

- -- 
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 08:05:54 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 09:27:01PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]
> 
>          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;

You have a misunderstanding.  NSI loses .net, as well.

> 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

..and .net

> begin to outweigh the 
> disadvantages the contract would bring.

You are just waving your hands.

Could you specify why?  What, specifically, are the disadvantages that it 
would bring?

- -- 
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:51:05 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

- --part1_dd.116a638f.27de6689_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roberto 
I went one farther on your suggestion to post to the ICANN forum on this 
matter as I found TONS of protest to the various parts of the proposed 
contract.  I sent a communication to the DoC

    <A HREF="http://www.house.gov/commerce">http://www.house.gov/commerce</A>   

And my senior Senator (Hon. Sen. Conrad Burns, Chair of Sen. Subcommittee on 
Communications) who is already interested in ICANN's procedures.

      http://burns.senate.gov/

We need to continue to do our best to achieve a workable organization from 
within, a little outside help is also needed from what I've seen.  We need a 
working and net supported organization which can be achieved with lots of 
work.

YoFelipe (I,Phillip)
Phil King
Butte MT USA
The Richest Hill On Earth!

- --part1_dd.116a638f.27de6689_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Franklin Gothic Book" LANG="0">Roberto 
<BR>I went one farther on your suggestion to post to the ICANN forum on this 
<BR>matter as I found TONS of protest to the various parts of the proposed 
<BR>contract. &nbsp;I sent a communication to the DoC
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">    <A HREF="http://www.house.gov/commerce">http://www.house.gov/commerce</A></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">   
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#8000ff" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Franklin Gothic Book" LANG="0">
<BR>And my senior Senator (Hon. Sen. Conrad Burns, Chair of Sen. Subcommittee on 
<BR>Communications) who is already interested in ICANN's procedures.
<BR>
<BR> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;http://burns.senate.gov/
<BR>
<BR>We need to continue to do our best to achieve a workable organization from 
<BR>within, a little outside help is also needed from what I've seen. &nbsp;We need a 
<BR>working and net supported organization which can be achieved with lots of 
<BR>work.
<BR>
<BR>YoFelipe (I,Phillip)
<BR>Phil King
<BR>Butte MT USA
<BR>The Richest Hill On Earth!
<BR></FONT></HTML>

- --part1_dd.116a638f.27de6689_boundary--
- --
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 12:59:01 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 08:05 AM 3/12/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 11, 2001 at 09:27:01PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> > At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>[...]
> >
> >          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;
>
>You have a misunderstanding.  NSI loses .net, as well.

         Quite the contrary.  The proposed contract would extend ICANN's 
hold on the .net registry to at least January *2006*.  At that time, ICANN 
is to choose an entity with which to negotiate a new contract.  ICANN is 
free to continue NSI as the registry operator at that time.  Indeed, the 
proposed contract requires ICANN to make its choice taking into account a 
variety of considerations that will likely favor maintaining .net with the 
NSI incumbent even after 2006, such as "the stability of the Internet," 
"the relevant experience of the party," and "the demonstrated ability of 
the party to manage domain name or similar databases at the required 
scale."  These are essentially the same substantive provisions that govern 
the choice of the successor registry under the current contract.

         Bottom line:  Under the current contract, if NSI does not spin off 
the registrar business, its registry contract for .com and .net expires in 
November 2003, and is subject to a rebid process.  Under the new contract, 
NSI need not spin off the registrar business; its registry contract for 
.com expires in 2007, and is subject to presumptive renewal; and its 
registry contract for .net expires in 2006, and is subject to rebid on the 
terms set out in the old contract.  In short, NSI has greater rights to the 
.net registry under the proposed contract than under the old one.

> > 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
>
>..and .net
>
> > begin to outweigh the
> > disadvantages the contract would bring.
>
>You are just waving your hands.
>Could you specify why?  What, specifically, are the disadvantages that it
>would bring?

         I've got a variety of concerns about the proposed contract (most 
of which are shared by the proposed contracts for the new TLD registries), 
but for purposes of this discussion I'll rest on the main one: the fact 
that it maintains ownership of the .com registry (at least until 2007, and 
presumptively thereafter), the .net registry (at least until 2006, and 
likely thereafter), and the NSI registrar business in the same Verisign/NSI 
hands, and that it makes this concession with little apparent 
countervailing benefit.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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 12:52:27 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

In my own opinion as I have expressed individually and in public meetings
here in Melbourne, Dave is correct in his conclusion that the real choices
are between the two agreements.  For those that insist this is a
policy/process issue, is 30 days not an adequate amount of time for review
and comment?

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 8:04 PM
To: Patrick Greenwell
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; vint cerf; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [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
- --
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 13:06:12 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

In evaluating whether or not to go forward with the testbed, VeriSign
considered a variety of factors.  Certainly demand, especially in the Asia
Pacific region was one of those factors.  But also, we recognized that there
were some IDN efforts going on that were not necessarily pursuing approaches
consistent with the IETF standards development process.  It was our opinion
that waiting much longer in doing something in this regard could allow the
other efforts to gain significant momentum and possibly make it difficult
later for a standards based solution to succeed.

It is important to note that we have committed to implement whatever IETF
standard is developed and are operating the testbed in cooperation with IDN
working group.

Finally, before we decided to go forward with the testbed, we considered
offering testbed names for free but concluded that doing so would have just
fueled name speculation more.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dave Crocker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 3:38 PM
To: Marc Schneiders
Cc: vint cerf; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [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
- --
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 13:12:57 -0500
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

> On 2001-03-11 09:57:43 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > Going back just to the previous ICANN meeting, I remember you
> > making the remark, a propos the IOD application for .web, that it
> > was an "old way" to conceive the management of a TLD, with no
> > separation between Registry and Registrar. What has changed in few
> > months, and why the DNSO has not participated to the cahnge in
> > polcy?
> 
> Actually, I'd like to quote Hans Kraaijenbrink (in the Scribe's
> words) on this one:
> 
>  "IOD goes against everything we ve worked on the last two
>  years they join registrar and registry, and they have a high
>  price."
> 
And in MDR, he yelled that he was willing to ignore IOD's claim to 
.WEB "knowing they had a functioning registry..."  However, he does 
embody the attitude of the BoD.  It's a shame, because they have 
now opened a Pandora's box.

In actuality, if you were to think ahead a bit, there is no reason 
why a registry/registrar cannot exist and perform well.  If there 
were 100 TLDs, it would not matter.  A registry is automatically a 
monopoly because there is no reasonable techncial method to split 
it up.  With a multitude of TLDs, it would have little meaning, just as 
in any other business.  Every entrepreneurial business is a monopoly 
in that sense.  Many franchise, but still hold the HQ.  If a registry 
brings in additional registrars the goal is accomplished.

IOD has every right to .WEB and its model has worked for five 
years.  ICANN's rejection was arbitrary and unwise.

Leah
> See also:
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-111600
> .html>
> 
> Kraaijenbrink's contribution is the last paragraph of D.5.
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler			    <[email-masked]>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:23:50 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

As Dave Crocker pointed out in a separate post, requiring consensus
decisions for contract negotiations will not work.  ICANN's only source of
power is through contracts.  If they have to wait for a consensus decision
on every contract they negotiate, their ability to function will come to a
screeching halt.  Many here in Melbourne have complained about ICANN staff's
inability to respond in a timely manner to their responsibilities.  It
doesn't take much imagination to predict how requiring consensus decisions
would worsen this situation.

If you read the ICANN Bylaws carefully, you will find that the NC's role is
not to make consensus decisions but rather to manage the consensus process
through mechanisms such as working groups.  As we all know, that is an
extremely time consuming process as it should be in a global setting.

The Bylaws clearly require consensus recommendations for policy issues.  And
I am fully aware that there is a difference of opinion as to whether this is
a policy decision.  Certainly, I don't believe that anyone can point to a
documented policy with regard to separation of registry and registrar.  As
Roberto pointed out in the open forum, he believes that there was an implied
policy, but even if that was true, I don't believe that such an implied
policy was specifically developed as a consensus policy.  Instead a few
individuals simply decided to include such provisions in contracts.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 4:40 PM
To: [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
- --
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 13:27:08 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] New contracts

That letter simply indicated that an extension would be required if a
decision on the proposed agreements was not made with adequate lead time.
It did not say that VeriSign wanted an extension.  Stratton Sclavos in
yesterday's open forum clearly said that in his fiduciary responsibility to
could not delay this issue.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 4:18 PM
To: [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
- --
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 13:34:39 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

Joop,

A correction:  There was one vote of opposition on the NC (mine) and at
least 5 abstensions.  Obviously, the motion still passed.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: J J Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 7:49 AM
To: [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
- --
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 10:41:06 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> ...and that it makes this concession with little apparent
> countervailing benefit.

I've come to a similar conclusion.

One thing that might tip the scales though is to know more specifics about
problems under the original agreement that will be cured in the new drafts.
We now have 18 months of experience, what are the problems?

In his presentation yesterday, Joe Sims mentioned some unstated
disadvantages of the previous agreement. There was a point when he described
the Nov. 1999 agreements as including some provisions that were open to
interpretation. According to Sims, the new agreements clear up those
ambiguities. From his tone, I understood that the problems were potentially
serious and possibly a source for future litigation. I thought that
Register.com's Richard Forman echoed the existence of these unstated
problems with the Nov. 1999 agreement when he spoke.

Unfortunately, no one who discussed the problems in the Nov. 1999 agreement
noted specifically what the problems were. I'd really appreciate hearing
something more about that. If there are ambiguities in the 1999 contracts
that are apparent now with 18 months of experience and that may pose
problems either now or in the future, that would be a significant factor
weighing in favor of the new arrangement.

        -- Bret

- --
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 15:16:58 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

I believe there was no qualitative explanation at the live presentation.
There was, however, a quantitative explanation.

1. Clever lawyers could find a lot to be creative about in the existing
contract.

2. Clever lawyers would find a lot less to be creative about in the new
contract.

3. While approaching the same terms as the new gTLD contracts, the new VRSN
contract is not quite  as "tight" as the new gTLD contract.

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bret
Fausett
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> ...and that it makes this concession with little apparent
> countervailing benefit.

I've come to a similar conclusion.

One thing that might tip the scales though is to know more specifics about
problems under the original agreement that will be cured in the new drafts.
We now have 18 months of experience, what are the problems?

In his presentation yesterday, Joe Sims mentioned some unstated
disadvantages of the previous agreement. There was a point when he described
the Nov. 1999 agreements as including some provisions that were open to
interpretation. According to Sims, the new agreements clear up those
ambiguities. From his tone, I understood that the problems were potentially
serious and possibly a source for future litigation. I thought that
Register.com's Richard Forman echoed the existence of these unstated
problems with the Nov. 1999 agreement when he spoke.

Unfortunately, no one who discussed the problems in the Nov. 1999 agreement
noted specifically what the problems were. I'd really appreciate hearing
something more about that. If there are ambiguities in the 1999 contracts
that are apparent now with 18 months of experience and that may pose
problems either now or in the future, that would be a significant factor
weighing in favor of the new arrangement.

        -- Bret

- --
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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 13:59:02 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 01:23 PM 3/12/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>As Dave Crocker pointed out in a separate post, requiring consensus
>decisions for contract negotiations will not work.  ICANN's only source of
>power is through contracts.  If they have to wait for a consensus decision
>on every contract they negotiate, their ability to function will come to a
>screeching halt.
[snip]

         Let me try and parse this, Chuck.

1. ICANN exercises power only through contracts.
2. Contracts are not subject to the consensus process.
3. Therefore, no exercise of ICANN power is subject to the consensus process.

         Have I got that right?

Certainly, I don't believe that anyone can point to a
>documented policy with regard to separation of registry and registrar.  As
>Roberto pointed out in the open forum, he believes that there was an implied
>policy, but even if that was true, I don't believe that such an implied
>policy was specifically developed as a consensus policy.  Instead a few
>individuals simply decided to include such provisions in contracts.

         "A few individuals"?  I'd expected better from you, Chuck.  Let me 
quote from <http://www.icann.org/general/agreements.htm>:

"Policies adopted through the ICANN process are implemented by agreement of 
entities involved in the operation of the Internet. In some cases, this 
agreement occurs after the policy is adopted; in other cases the 
implementation is pre-arranged through written agreements. Some of those 
agreements are: . . . Agreements Among ICANN, the U.S. Department of 
Commerce, and Network Solutions, Inc. (November 10, 1999)."

I'll grant you that those agreements (which include the provisions on 
registrar-registry separation that you are now trying to avoid) were not 
the product of a process beginning in the Supporting 
Organizations.  Nonetheless, they were made available by the ICANN Board 
for public comment, were the subject of extensive debate at a Board 
meeting, were revised in several respects in light of community reactions, 
and were finally adopted by the Board when the community was satisfied that 
- -- as revised -- they embodied appropriate policy.  Are the "few 
individuals" you're referring to, by any chance, the ICANN Board?

Jonathan Weinberg
[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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #274
************************