Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #276
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 13 2001           Volume 01 : Number 276

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 12:33:40 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 01:59:02PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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?

Most *actual* exercising of power is not subject to a consensus
process, in *any* arena -- when a policeman arrests someone, the
electorate is not making his on-the-spot decisions for him. 

> 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. 

In fact, the only real policy input from the DNSO in this area came 
from WG-C, and the substance of that policy is that a number of 
different models should be tried.

- -- 
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 14:56:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

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

  I, and seemingly many other participants don't share your or Dave's
opinion here.  That much is quite clear.

>  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.

  Again I, along with many other participants strongly disagree with this
position.  In fact, in union contracts for instance, a number of "Chapters"
and groups must agree with the contract before it is ratified and thereby
available to be implemented.  So, I fail to see the logic or rightness in your
contention....

>  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.

  This sound nice, but doesn't ring true necessarily Chuck.  And you know it
as well!  I am amazed that you could make such a statement.  The ICANN staff
has shown time and time again a complete unwillingness to even attempt
to respond to any queries....

>
>
> 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.

  Well almost right.  But not quite.  I will no quibble on your first point
here though.  However it remains to be seen, and there is some historic
evidence to the contrary in other areas, that WG's can work quickly and
efficiently if a predetermined time table is established.

>
>
> 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

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 15:04:39 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[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 14:20:34 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

> Most *actual* exercising of power is not subject to a consensus
> process, in *any* arena -- when a policeman arrests someone, the
> electorate is not making his on-the-spot decisions for him. 

Yes, but when the contract with the police department is up for
renewal or change, it is a public policy issue. That's the analogy
you're looking for.

- --
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:08:57 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Melbourne board  resolution

Melbourne board  resolution.
To allow the at large study committee to enlarge itself with additional
skill sets.

IMHO a wise decision.

They are seeing the writing on the wall.

- --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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 00:08:57 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Amadeu is asking for DNSO resolutions

We have to power and the means to give him those.

Resolutions from the DNSO.

All we need to do is organize the DNSO to come up with resolutions that are
put to a public vote in the Polling Booth.

This can be done in the next 14 days, for the benefit of the desicionmaking
of the ICANN Board.

To work!

Who volunteers a first draft for
Proposed resolution one:

The DNSO, following the precepts of the bottom -up decisionmaking envisaged
by the ICANN of the White Paper,
............advises the Board 

Would anyone step forward to act as ad Hoc Chair to guide this formulation,
amendments process, etc. for the 
next 14 days?

- --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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:17:11 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Melbourne board  resolution

>Melbourne board  resolution.
>To allow the at large study committee to enlarge itself with additional
>skill sets.
>
>IMHO a wise decision.
>
>They are seeing the writing on the wall.

Let's hope so.

I found it interesting that they didn't feel the need to put any specifics
regarding "geographic/ethnic diversity" in because it's already in the
by-laws.

With ICANN BoD's displayed propensity to re-write the bylaws to suit them,
I'd feel much more comfortable seeing specifics required in any resolutions
they pass to safeguard against this, or else a simple re-write of the
bylaws could change aspects of everything they've done so far.

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:24:08 -0800
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On 3/12/01 at 14:30:33 -0800, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote :

>Subject:
>
>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...

Amusing comment considering Jeff has no legal training nor legal staff...

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01091.html
- -- 

Darrell Greenwood           mailto:[email-masked]
Vancouver, BC               http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/
- --
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 15:07:47 -0500
From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Chuck et al,

I think everyone wishes there were more time to consider these alternatives but
the reality of it is that there are real deadlines that it does not seem practicable
to extend. I truly hope that our DNSO colleagues will find a way to assist in this
evaluation in the time we have available. Once the deadline has passed, there will
be only the one option open to VeriSign (well, I suppose they could also allow
the extension option to lapse but this seems highly unlikely based on all we have
heard thus far).

Vint

At 02:03 PM 3/12/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>The new agreements were posted on March 1st.
>
>Chuck

- --
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 16:07:24 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Amadeu is asking for DNSO resolutions

Hello J,

Monday, March 12, 2001, 3:08:57 AM, J J Teernstra wrote:

> We have to power and the means to give him those.

> Resolutions from the DNSO.

> All we need to do is organize the DNSO to come up with resolutions that are
> put to a public vote in the Polling Booth.

"The polling booth" is "your" polling booth, the GA already has a
voting process and mechanism in place, and it should continue to be
used.

- -- 
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:31:16 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

[email-masked]>
>Sender: [email-masked]
>X-Lyris-Message-Id:
<[email-masked]>
>X-Envelope-To: [email-masked]
>
>During public meetings in Melbourne, Australia, the Board of Directors for
>the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers refused to approve
>or reject proposed contracts that would allow domain name giant Verisign to
>retain its powers over .com through at least 2007. Under these plans,
>Verisign would also retain a substantial level of control over two other key
>Top-Level Domains for several years, including .org (through December 2002)
>and .net (through December 2006). The Board has instead decided to schedule
>a private conference call during which a final decision presumably will be
>made. This move came after an open forum session where many observers
>criticized ICANN over the apparently undemocratic approach with which these
>agreements were created.
>
>See
>http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights
>
>Sincerely,
>Christopher Chiu
>Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer
>American Civil Liberties Union

This gives the DNSO (GA?)  a very tight window to act,i.e.to discuss and
poll its individual members and constituencies to come back with a
recommended decision to the Board. 
This is also a challenge to the NC to get its act together and start feeding
relevant discussion points (especially competition/monopolism issues) to the
GA, for their discussion and possible consensus.

Time for input will be very short. As Jonathan Cohen observed: the capital
markets and investors are demanding quick answers as to how NSI/Verisign is
going to look like next month and 5 years from now. 
Option A and option B do make a difference..

I think the chair election will have to be postponed , so that the DNSO GA
can focus on this immediate issue.
Let's have an interim chair for a few weeks just to oversee this "internet
time" input process.
And please let the moderators not be tolerant to those who would aim to
disturb a fast-track consensus process.

- --Joop

- --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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 02:31:16 +1300
From: J J Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

At 13:34 12/03/01 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Joop,
>
>A correction:  There was one vote of opposition on the NC (mine) and at
>least 5 abstensions.  Obviously, the motion still passed.
>
>Chuck

Yes, it did. Thanks for the correction. Sorry that I missed your AGAINST vote.

   Who were all the abstainers? Could you list them?

- --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: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 19:41:52 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Darrell and all remaining assembly members,

  You, as was/is Joe Kelsey, are specifically incorrect.  Our general
council is Brian Holingsworth for instance....  I am indeed sorry
that you and Joe Kelsey are so uninformed or misinformed...

Darrell Greenwood wrote:

> On 3/12/01 at 14:30:33 -0800, Jeff Williams <[email-masked]> wrote :
>
> >Subject:
> >
> >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...
>
> Amusing comment considering Jeff has no legal training nor legal staff...
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01091.html
> --
>
> Darrell Greenwood           mailto:[email-masked]
> Vancouver, BC               http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/
> --
> 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 17:41:30 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] The Verisign agreements

[I forgot to send this a while back...the discussion continues, so here it 
is.]
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 10:21:58PM +1300, DPF wrote:
[...]
> >Note I said "effectively".  Read 22 (e).  If NSI is not selected, they 
> >can take ICANN to court.
> 
> I am aware of that.  But changing the language from a "shall not be
> disadvantaged by being the incumbent"to "shall have a presumption
> their contract will be renewed" is a pretty damn significant change.  

I'm not sure that it is anywhere near as significant as you claim.  I
consider the threat of court action as a very serious lever -- remember
that NSI would be defending its cash cow, and, in the brute economics of
the situation, it can afford to spend all its profits from the registry
in a legal battle to keep the registry, because if it loses the
registry, it loses that profit stream anyway.  This is many millions of
dollars spent on clever lawyers attacking ICANN on any technicality they
can dream up, and ICANN will necessarily spend lots and lots of money 
defending against it.

The "shall have a presumption" language is not in the contract, it is in
the staff's explanatory blurb.  The relevant language in the contract
(http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-com-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm) is in
section 25.  There is a great deal of legalese in this section -- I 
think it is a fair assessment to say that there is a presumption that 
NSI will keep the registry.  But I think it is a fair assessment to say 
that there is a de-facto presumption that they will keep all three 
registries in the current agreement.

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

To some extent.  This effect is mitigated to some (perhaps large) degree
by the threat of a lawsuit, as I outlined above.

> >> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> >> entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
> >> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
> >
> >fat chance.
> 
> That is in the agreement.  They can of course argue it in court but if
> for example they have insisted if they have the contract renewed that
> they can charge $8 per name and a competing bid said they can do it
> for $3 a name then ICANN would be on fairly strong ground to go with
> the competitor.

Yes...after spending $30 million defending a lawsuit.  

> >> Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal.  D(4) states that
> >> there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
> >> and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.
> >
> >It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.  
> >The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity".  But it is 
> >legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.
> 
> They don't say in perpetuity"but by not having an expiry date or
> maximum number of renewals, this combined with a "presumption" of
> renewal will have much the same effect.
>
> What worries me about this proposal is it is effectively a one way
> step.  Sign this and ICANN have committed themselves for good - no
> turning back.

There *are* grounds under which the contract would not be renewed.  In
particular, if there was any evidence of collusion between the registry
and the registrar, that would be a material breach of the agreement. 
There is still the matter of fighting a potential lawsuit, though.

> >> By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
> >> competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
> >> reductions from the current US$6.
> >
> >Possibly.  Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
> >at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
> >recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
> >good names are taken.  The fact is, you are just guessing. 
> 
> Indeed - I am well aware it could dry up.   That is why I am hesitant
> about endorsing a deal with a "presumptive"right of renewal for ever.

Sorry, I don't understand.  If registrations in .com dry up, why do you 
care if NSI gets to renew forever?

[...]

> >In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that 
> >Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they 
> >want to give it up.
> 
> There we disagree.  If there was no chance of losing it under the
> status quo why would they be so willing to spend literally hundreds of
> millions of dollars and give away *.net and *.org so that they gain a
> "presumptive"right to renew it.

That is very easy to answer: Indeed *if they do nothing* there is a
chance they would lose the registry.  But they aren't going to do
nothing -- in fact they will do whatever it takes to keep the registry. 
But doing what it takes to keep the registry could conceivably cost them
lots of money -- not just court costs, but in lost business, lost market
value in their stock price -- all kinds of ways.  There is great
potential monetary value in the stability the new agreement offers them. 

So, the fact is that they will keep the registry regardless, but under
the new proposal, all things considered, they think they will make lots
more money.  In fact, both scenarios are incredibly sweet deals for NSI,
and, on a personal level, I find it very annoying that they have such a
privileged position.

But really, the advantages that accrue to NSI are a secondary concern --
many of the issues with .com are going to hold *regardless* of who is the
contractor: the customers will remain locked-in, .com will retain a
cachet and mystique; the cash cow will continue to squirt milk; and it 
would be very naive to think that *any* company who is put in that 
position is going to refuse to use these advantages.

- -- 
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 03:25:41 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] the physical GA and the Names Council (Melbourne)

J J Teernstra wrote on 13.03.01, 02:31:16:
> At 13:34 12/03/01 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>Joop,
>>
>>A correction:  There was one vote of opposition on the NC (mine) and at
>>least 5 abstensions.  Obviously, the motion still passed.
>>
>>Chuck
>
> Yes, it did. Thanks for the correction. Sorry that I missed your AGAINST vote.
>
>    Who were all the abstainers? Could you list them?

According to the Scribe Notes, this seems to have 
been the vote:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031101-nc.html

AGAINST:
Gomes (gTLD Registries)

ABSTAIN:
Stubbs (Registrars) 
Swinehart (Business) 
Carey (IP)
Chicoine (IP; via Carey's proxy)
Aus der Muhlen (IP; via Carey's proxy)

which leaves FOR:
De Blanc (ccTLD) 
Porteneuve (ccTLD) 
Robles (ccTLD) 
Park (NCDNHC) 
Mueller (NCDNHC; via Martinez' proxy) 
Martinez (NCDNHC) 
Kane (Registrars) 
Roberts (Registrars) 
Hotta (ISP/CP) 
Harris (ISP/CP) 
Forsyth (Business) 
Sheppard (Business) 
Schneider (ISP/CP) 

Best regards,
/// Alexander
_______________________________________________________
  ICANN Channel              http://www.icannchannel.de
- --
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 22:05:36 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

I think the chair election will have to be postponed , so that the DNSO GA
can focus on this immediate issue.

I disagree. The authority of the GA is dependant upon formal processes being
undertaken, including GA Chair, which processes have already been agreed and
scheduled after hard fought argument. Let's not sacrifice progress made for
hypothetical gains. Yet again, we are being disrupted in our due diligence
by forces seeking to further their own agendas. When are members going to
learn that the word "No" is part of their vocabulary? I am increasingly
reminded of the phrase, "The tail is wagging the dog".

Let's have an interim chair for a few weeks just to oversee this "internet
time" input process.
And please let the moderators not be tolerant to those who would aim to
disturb a fast-track consensus process.

Who would you propose ?
Joanna

- --
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 #276
************************