Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #275
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 12 2001            Volume 01 : Number 275

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:03:21 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

The new agreements were posted on March 1st.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:05 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; 'Dave Crocker'; 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

I agree that 30 days is adequate. However, that should be 30 days from this
(melbourne) meeting.
For whatever reasons, the issue is now clearly on the table, and there is
widespread awareness.

To get 30 days requires an act on the part of ICANN, VRSN, and US DOC. Right
now we are talking about April 1, and that is not 30 days. As I said in a
previous post, to the GA list:
- ------
Speaking personally the (new) deal may have some merits. Of course, any deal
that took months to negotiate can hardly be reviewed in a few days. I
disagree with the "throw away" remark "There is never enough time"

Speaking as a NC member (ccTLD), we have an obligation to advise the BoD on
policy. No matter what anyone else has said, in my opinion there is a policy
shift here. Again, I am not saying it is a "bad deal", just that it is
clearly a policy shift.

Process is important, especially in these days of intense ICANN scrutiny.

Therefore, I will argue for an extension of 30 days, which, I am sure if
VSGN and ICANN agreed on, would be accepted by US DOC.

That would provide a short, but reasonable time to evaluate, discuss with
our constituencies, provide inputs to the BoD, and respect the ICANN
process.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to go with the new deal rather than
maintaining the "automatic status quo" of the existing deal, there would be
an opportunity for the larger Internet community to "buy into" the benefits
of the new deal. This action would vaildate the legitimacy of the ICANN
process, instead of destroying it.

Assuming the outcome of the advice was to retain the status quo, I can not
see that another 30 days delay in the implimentation could possibly have a
great downside.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Gomes,
Chuck
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:52 PM
To: 'Dave Crocker'; 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

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
- --
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 14:15:16 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Policy is subject to the consensus process exactly as the bylaws state.  If
a contract changes policy, it would be subject to the consensus process.  In
this case, there is no documented policy involved.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Weinberg [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:59 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck; [email-masked]; [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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:36:45 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Merits of the (new Deal)

Let's have a (new) thread to discuss the merits of the deal. The policy
issue thread is pretty well established.

Peter de Blanc

- --
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 14:19:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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.

  How is this 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.

  Agreed.

>
>
> 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. (*)

  This remains to be seen.  And to the contrary, Mike Roberts has made
moises to the contrary on the ICANN-EU ML.

>
>
> > 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

  THe referenced archive you provide here is more of a questionable
admonishment of Milton Mueller than a supporting comment to your
assertion.  To Wit, from your referenced archive posting:
"As has been obvious for some time, Milton, you are easily appalled, but it
   would be useful if you would read before you write.  Louis said in his
   posting that the issues about the future of .org are policy decisions that
   should go through the consensus process.  With respect to all the other
   issues you raise, these are either the results of a previous consensus
   process, including recommendations by the DNSO, or mere contract terms,
   which are not policy issues.   A policy is just that; it is not a contract
   term.  You, like everyone else, are perfectly free to offer whatever views
   you want on the contracts, which is why they were posted, but they are
   clearly not matters on which referral to the DNSO is required or warranted.
   It seems to me it would be more useful to focus your limited time on the
   substance of the issues you want to address, rather than continuing to tilt
   at this particular windmill."

>
>
> --
> 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

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 12:02:24 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 12:59:01PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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.

Those conditions have considerably less force for .net alone than they
do for .com/.net/.org combined.  The scale of .net is less than .com,
and indeed the hope is that there will be several other registry
operators by then who operate on a commensurate scale.  That almost
certainly will not be the case for .com.  And, given several experienced
registry operators, there is no real argument that the stability of the
Internet will be affected.  Given the desire to increase competition,
then, it is highly unlikely that NSI would get .net in a rebid.  Nor is
NSI nearly as likely to take a failed bid to court.  News reports have
stated as such, indicating that this is not my opinion alone... 

>          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.

NSI has made it clear that they will spin off the registrar, so
effectively under the old contract they continue the registry for
.comnetorg until 2007, when it is rebid as a unit.  At that point,
however, very few people believe that any of the new registries will
match the size of .comnetorg, and the arguments about scale and 
experience take on a great deal more force.  And, while NSI could 
always sue, the old contract explicitly encourages them to sue if they 
don't win the rebid.  I consider that threat decisive:  the grounds are 
fuzzy enough so that NSI could tie things up for a very long, expensive 
time. 

>  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.

It seems to me that you are looking at a rather abstract view of 
"rights", and ignoring practical realities.

[...]

> >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.

I see it differently:

Old:  NSI keeps .comnetorg registry indefinitely (past 2007), divests 
registrar.

New: NSI keeps .com registry and registrar indefinitely (but maintains
current firewall with registrar, under pain of loss of contract), and
divests .net and .org. 

- -- 
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 14:30:33 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Jonathan and all remaining assembly members,

  I, and our legal staff, are in agreement with your opinion here.  It is
indeed unfortunate that some participants that have very little legal
training care to offer a legal opinion.  Wholly unprofessional, IMHO...

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> 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

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 14:34:36 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

  Well of course Mr. Sclavos said that.  However that does not mean
or should be reasonably construed to indicate that such a statement reflects
any real fiduciary impact....  But it is a nice sounding excuse....

>
>
> 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

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 15:23:02 -0500
From: "Kevin J. Connolly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

I concur that the policy is not well-documented. However, the idea that NSI would segregate the Registrar and Registry functions was part of the basic worldview that Becky Burr articulated at the grave side of the GTLD-MoU. She expressed concerns that anything less than separating the functions and opening registrar powers to any qualified player would simply perpetuate the perception of NSI as "evil monopolist" forever. In some ways, this expectation became part of the "unwritten constitution" of the domain name reform plan that was expressed in the White Paper and which we all are attempting to put into operational practice.

Kevin J. Connolly
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman, LLP
1290 Sixth Aveue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
212-541-1066/fax 212-541-1346
This note is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would come with an invoice.

Live, like there's no tomorrow.....
     Love, like you've never been hurt.....
          And dance, like no one's watching.

>>> "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]> 03/12/01 01:23PM >>>
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 personalp
 rejudices 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 theb
 est 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 andp
 roviding 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 int
 hem.  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 

*******************************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to [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 20:29:04 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

CHuck Gomes wrote:
> As Dave Crocker pointed out in a separate post, requiring consensus
> decisions for contract negotiations will not work.  

I have never seen anyone suggest the Names Council should negiotate the 
contracts.  But if the staff go away and negiotate contracts which radically 
alter the status quo without so much as even consulting the Board or Names 
Council, then it is no surprise that resistance is encountered.  if the staff 
had sought out a negiotating framework then we probably would not be having 
this debate.
 
> 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.

Yep which is why having people abuse the Names Council because they feel they 
need more than seven days to comment on the policy implications of the 
proposals, is so counter productive.  The Names Council are following the 
Bylaws.
 
> 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.

If one does not consider these proposals as policy issues I can't concieve what 
we would consider a policy issue.  If the DNSO should have no opinion on 
whether granting a presumptive right to *.com for eternity is desirable or not, 
then lets abolish the DNSO and leave it all to the staff.

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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:29:54 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Multilingual testbed (RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, at 13:06 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

[...]

> 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.

Still, I cannot shake off the feeling, that the testing was wholly
done by speculators and that they were catered for. One registrar
offered european language preregistrations a few weeks back before
those started, but people had to do at least 100. Also the rush for
the european names, with software at registrars that wasn't fully
functional, suggests that testing was not the only point. To me at
least.

(I have no experience with the asian language names.)

- -- 
Marc Schneiders --- Venster NetPresence Consultancy
http://www.venster.nl/
http://www.bijt.net/

- --
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 20:35:45 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] New contracts

Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 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.

I'm not trying to be the anti-NSI/Verisign guy here (I have no antipathy 
towards the company, just a natural dislike of monopoly situations) but if 
Verisign is going to play hardball and refuse to give the DNSO a chance for 
proper consultation, then why should ICANN be looking at such an extension.

I am tempted to say that we have a very clear legal agreement with Verisign at 
present and that says they must divest their Registrar business by 18 May or 
their registry contract runs out in 2003.  Notwithstanding any hopes they may 
have as to ICANN may agree to something different, they have an obligation to 
be ready by 18 May.  If Verisign wish to gamble on what the Board may do, that 
is up to them, but if by 18 May they still have a registrar business then they 
have lost the right to remain as registry - why should ICANN grant an extension 
when it favours Verisign, when Verisign will not grant an extension to help 
ICANN and DNSO?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #275
************************