Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #277
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 13 2001           Volume 01 : Number 277

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:12:19 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

Joop wrote:
>
>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.

NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that 
weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming 
out during the next 7 to 10 days.

>
>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.

I am not sure that this is necessary, because the nomination process will 
not take a huge amount of time from the members, and the election itself is 
after the deadline, but if people perceive this as a need, we may postpone 
the election of a couple of weeks.

>Let's have an interim chair for a few weeks just to oversee this "internet
>time" input process.

????
I don't have any interest in staying in office longer than strictly 
necessary for the GA to decide a successor, but I will not leave one day 
earlier than the moment in which a new chair will be in office.
I think that it is in order that the current Chair + Alt Chair coordinate 
this phase.

>And please let the moderators not be tolerant to those who would aim to
>disturb a fast-track consensus process.

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:26:16 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>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.
>

This is IIF the power is exerced within the borders of the current 
legislation (=>policy).
Since the DNSO NC (=>the body that is responsible for providing policy 
recommandation) has serious doubts about this, the question is in order.

>
>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.
>

May I disagree.
What you quote was the only "affirmative" statement from the DNSO, but a 
consistent number of decisions by DNSO and BoD constitute a "de-facto" 
policy statement.
The choice of new TLDs in MdR was dependent on the Registrar/Registry 
separation (pls. refer to the minutes for the statements from Vint + Hans), 
for instance.
Had the separation not been an element for decision, maybe other TLDs would 
have been chosen (IOD's .web, specifically).

Also, as pointed out also here in Melbourne, an anti-trust procedure by EC 
(DGIV, I believe) has been withdrawn after negotiations only after the 
separation clause had been introduced in the 1999 contract with NSi. The 
separation was therefore a relevant part of the contract, not something that 
could be changed by staff decision, in absence of agreement from the 
policy-making bodies.
(and, BTW, that should have been known to the staff).

Regards
Roberto

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 14:29:31 +1100
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano
|> Sent: Tuesday, 13 March 2001 2:12 PM
|> 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 am not sure that this is necessary, because the nomination
|> process will not take a huge amount of time from the members, and the
|> election itself is after the deadline, but if people perceive this as a
need, we
|> may postpone the election of a couple of weeks.

I can see no reason for due process to be postponed to allow for discussion
and review of a new topic.  Agreed the timeline for comment is short but no
one would ever get anywhere in life if we only dealt with one issue at a
time.

There seems to be a preoccupation with only dealing with one issue at a
time.  If this thinking is followed the GA will never be effective.  It
needs to adapt and deal with a myriad of issues as they come up.  Human
beings do not think serially, but in parallel, why force unnatural methods
on ourselves.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 04:44:50 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Chuck,
>
>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?

No, it is not, and to see how much time decision of lesser importance have 
taken should show us this.

Nevertheless, we have to cope with externally imposed constraint, and 
therefore we have to make the better possible decision with the little time 
we have.

Of course, there is the risk of taking the wrong decision, but that was 
known to the parties that negotiated the deal, I assume.
What I would like to add is that in case of doubt it is obvious that the 
"statu quo" shall be preserved.
The question is therefore: can the proposers of the change convince us of 
the benefits of this change for the Internet community beyond doubt, such as 
the DNSO can recommend a change in the current policy (or at least in the 
consolidated practice shown in all the consistent decisions so far)? And can 
this be done in the short timeframe that the contracting parties have chosen 
to adopt?

Regards
Roberto

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:55:09 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that
weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming
out during the next 7 to 10 days.

- - Sounds like a good plan. Any objections?

>
>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..

- - With the greatest respect, the best possible interests of internet
stakeholders should be foremost in DNSO minds and should not be compromised
for the interests of a minority of investors. Since when did capital market
analysts dictate ICANN's priorities?

>I think that it is in order that the current Chair + Alt Chair coordinate
this phase.

I agree and if a proposal is necessary, I propose it.
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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 22:32:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

Joanna and all remaining assembly members,

  I must concur with Joanna here.  There is not pressing need to postpone
the election of a new Chair.  Both issues can be handled simultaneously
IMHO.

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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

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 21:05:29 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] [wg-review] doing something

Amazing:  After months, someone responds to this question:

"Is there some repository of all the outstanding issues upon which we need to make decisions?"

with the internetstakeholders.com address, partially addressing my question about such a site.

The frustration expressed in my initial message was with finding the substance in all the chatter.  I certainly think The People should be in control of the Internet, when order needs to be applied, and that appears to be what this body is all about.  Yes, procedures need to be established, but most of the debate here is about things that are two or three layers away from the real issues for which the rest of the world is awaiting a solution.  It's just what people make fun of when they talk about forming a committee to study the possibility of funding a study to write a proposal to study the committee-making process.

It's possible that if we don't get past the paper-shuffling and start cranking through the real issues (the top-level domain fiasco, for example), everyone with a life and a realistic view is going to bail out from sheer boredom and disillusionment.

Gavin
- --
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 18:33:04 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001 04:12:19 +0100, you wrote:

>NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
>I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that 
>weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).

Thank you - that would be useful.

>We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming 
>out during the next 7 to 10 days.

I think a vote would be useful to indicate strength of feeling.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:57:36 -0800
From: john lionheart <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Unsubscribe

[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 21:50:25 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [wg-review] doing something

Hello gavin,

Monday, March 12, 2001, 9:05:29 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>I certainly think The People should be in control of the Internet

I don't agree with this generality.

The internet is not some test of a direct democracy/socialistic control
ideal.  Things simply do not work well that way in practical reality.

What needs to be found is way for internet users to participate, not
necessarily control, but to have input and have their input given the
weight it warrants.

What we have now is not an example of that, btw.

- -- 
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 00:54:57 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

At 10:55 PM 3/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
>NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
>I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that
>weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
>We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming
>out during the next 7 to 10 days.
>
>- Sounds like a good plan. Any objections?

I think that would be a good start. It will be a tight turn around - we 
must focus!
We look forward to reading your summary Roberto

And, regarding the chair election - I agree with Dassa, we will have to do 
both simultaneously.
Is there a list of the current nominees for the chair?

- -Kendall

- --
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 23:01:36 -0800
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] [wg-review] doing something

>The internet is not some test of a direct democracy/socialistic control
ideal.  Things simply do not work well that way in practical reality.

Hi William.

I didn't mean direct, thrown to the masses.  There must be a suitable conduit through which to express the popular will.

The real point was that I'd rather not see FCC-type oversight.

Regards,
Gavin
- --
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 01:23:45 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - The Vereisign "Deal"

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Chuck,
> >
> >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?
>
> No, it is not, and to see how much time decision of lesser importance have
> taken should show us this.

  Agreed here Roberto.  However I also do not think as it seems Dave
and the ICANN BoD purport that the decision is between just two
choices.  Rather I believe, as I think others do as well, that modifications
to the proposed contract with Verisign can be suggested by the GA.
Ergo, and "New" version of the proposed Verisign contract could be
arrived at by the GA as a recommendation to the ICANN BoD.  Although
the ICANN BoD may wish to avoid this entirely....

>
>
> Nevertheless, we have to cope with externally imposed constraint, and
> therefore we have to make the better possible decision with the little time
> we have.

  I don't see why.  It seems to me that the ICANN BoD could impose
upon Verisign that an additional block of time is needed by the DNSO to
properly and adequately review this proposed contract.

>
>
> Of course, there is the risk of taking the wrong decision, but that was
> known to the parties that negotiated the deal, I assume.
> What I would like to add is that in case of doubt it is obvious that the
> "statu quo" shall be preserved.
> The question is therefore: can the proposers of the change convince us of
> the benefits of this change for the Internet community beyond doubt, such as
> the DNSO can recommend a change in the current policy (or at least in the
> consolidated practice shown in all the consistent decisions so far)? And can
> this be done in the short timeframe that the contracting parties have chosen
> to adopt?

  It can, but it should not be held to the time frame now given...

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:26:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal

Kendall and all remaining assembly members,

Kendall Dawson wrote:

> At 10:55 PM 3/12/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >Roberto Gaetano wrote:-
> >NC needs input at the latest by 2001-03-25.
> >I am willing to prepare a summary of the discussion on the GA during that
> >weekend (the 25 is a Sunday).
> >We may also think to have a short vote if there is a strong position coming
> >out during the next 7 to 10 days.
> >
> >- Sounds like a good plan. Any objections?
>
> I think that would be a good start. It will be a tight turn around - we
> must focus!
> We look forward to reading your summary Roberto
>
> And, regarding the chair election - I agree with Dassa, we will have to do
> both simultaneously.
> Is there a list of the current nominees for the chair?

  Yes there is, and it has been posted seveal time on this ML.

>
>
> -Kendall
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 01:32:36 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Current nomination and status for GA Chair

All remaining assembly members,

  Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]> posted this on March
1st....
this is the current status of the
DNSO General Assembly quest for a new Chair:

 A.
        Nominated, but no response yet:
        >Rod Dixon
        >Roberto Gaetano
        >Barbara Simons
        >Emerson Tiller

As far as I can tell Emerson Tiller, Barbara
Simons and Rod Dixon haven't written anything for a long
time on the DNSO-GA list (and neither Barbara Simons nor
Emerson Tiller are in the voting registry), so I cc this
mail to them.

   B.
        >Greg Burton - Accepted
        >Eric Dierker - Accepted

   C.
        >Harald Alvestrand - Declined
        >Bret Fausett - Declined
        >Michael Froomkin  - Declined
        >Jeanette Hofmann - Declined
        >Thomas Roessler - Declined
        >Alexander Svensson - Declined
        >Jonathan Weinberg - Declined
        >Eric Weisberg - Declined

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: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 08:25:42 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting limit reminder

At this time of intense traffic, I wish to remind everyone that people 
should try to confine themselves to speaking only when they have something 
to say, and except in exceptional cases, they should restrain themselves to 
less than 5 messages per day.

This is a request from the chairs under the mailing list rules.
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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 08:39:46 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Election schedule (RE: [ga] Update: ICANN delays decision on Verisign power deal)

At 00:54 13/03/2001 -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>And, regarding the chair election - I agree with Dassa, we will have to do 
>both simultaneously.
>Is there a list of the current nominees for the chair?

According to the schedule published by the DNSO Secretariat on March 2,
the call for nominations will be issued on Friday:

III. The Secretariat determined with Roberto Gaetano and Harald Alvestrand,
      the DNSO GA Chairs, and Philip Sheppard, NC Chair, that the 2001
      election will take place between 2nd March and 10 April 2001, with the
      following agenda:
         o Friday, 02 Mar - Remider about voting roster, two weeks to
           register
         o Friday, 16 Mar - Call for nominations issued
         o Friday, 23 Mar - Call for endorsements issued
         o Friday, 30 Mar - List of candidates closes
         o Saturday, 31 Mar - Vote of the GA voting registry initiated
         o Saturday, 07 Apr - Vote of the GA voting registry closes
         o Sunday, 08 Apr - Results calculated
         o Tuesday, 10 Apr - NC elects the Chair and Alternate from the
           candidates ranked by the GA vote

At this time, all GA list members need to check their entries in the voting 
registry.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [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 02:50:11 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga]GA CHAIR Election

Is there a list of the current nominees for the chair?

Kendall and all remaining members,

The call for nominations starts this Friday.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00637.html

"Primaries" are running at
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/cfm/results1.cfm?TID=204 This list
represents eligible GA members current as of February 26th, but the roster
is still open, closing Friday.
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00629.html.

Harald posted the rules at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00608.html
Additional rules relating to "Primaries" at
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg00624.html

In order to move forward,  the Secretariat will post an Email address to
which nominations should be sent.
Regards,
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

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

Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 22:58:07 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] My analysis of proposed changes to NSI contract

To further some debate on the proposed contract revisions I am listing
below what appears to be the major parts of the proposals and what are
the pros and cons of each.

I am sorry that NSI is refusing to allow ICANN more time to study the
proposed changes.  But that is their decision and one they may have to
live with more than anyone else.  In view of such a (deliberately)
short time to consider the proposals I hope the ICANN BoD will only
vote in favour of the proposals if they consider they are *clearly*
better for the Internet community.  If they only consider them of
equal value one should stay with the status quo which had far more
consultation and community support.

>1. The existing Registry Agreement covering .com, .net and .org 
>would be split into three separate Agreements, one for each registry.

This is positive for the Internet community and sensible.  It is not a
huge issue either way but makes more sense to have each TLD with its
own contract.

>2. The term of the .org Registry Agreement would be shortened by 
>almost one year to 31 December 2002, at which time VeriSign would 
>permanently relinquish its right to operate the .org registry

This is probably good.  It depends on whether fees are likely to be
lower or higher by having registry split off (there are economies of
scale) and also whether it will still be possible through Registrars
to register names under multiple TLDs easily.

>In addition, VeriSign would establish an endowment of $5 million for 
>the purpose of funding the reasonable operating expenses of a global 
>registry for the specific use of non-profit organizations

This is good as without this prices for *.org are more likely to rise.
However has any costings been done of whether this is a large enough
amount (only provides $300,000 a year interest) to fund costs of such
a registry?  Is $5 million plucked out of the air or chosen fro some
reason?

>, and would make global resolution resources available to the operator 
>of the .org registry for no charge for one year and on terms to be 
>determined thereafter, for so long as it operates the .com registry. 

I don't actually understand what resolution services are being
referred to here.  I'm sure someone more knowledgable can specify
these for me.

>3 The term of the .net Registry Agreement would be extended only 
>to 1 January 2006, or twenty-two months shorter than the automatic 
>extension in Section 23 of the existing agreement would produce

Allowing net to come up for tender earlier is obviously good.  However
I would not get too excited over a mere 22 months.  We're still
talking about having it for another five years.

>At that time, the .net TLD registry would be opened to competitive 
>proposals, under a standard adapted from the existing agreement

This is basically neutral.  NSI has exactly the same chance of keeping
*.net in 2006 than it would in 2007.  

>, but with VeriSign having only the option of rapid arbitration rather than 
>litigation (as in the existing agreement) to review an ICANN decision to 
>select someone else to operate the registry, should that occur.

This is positive as avoiding litigation is good.  However again *.net
registrations are less than 1/4 the size of those of *.com.  I also
suspect many *.net registrations are done to match a name registered
in *.com.

>4. The existing agreement would be amended to provide that (1) it 
>applies only to the .com registry; (2) to conform it in many but not all 
>respects to the template of the registry agreements that will be 
>entered into by the new global TLD registry operators

This has been held up as some major gain yet details have been hard to
come by.  The best analysis seems to be from Peter de Blanc who said
"Clever lawyers would find a lot less to be creative about in the new
contract.".  This is useful of course.  I do wonder if the existing
contract is so deficient whether the same staff were used to draw it
up, as did the proposed new contract!!

>to provide a presumption favoring renewal of VeriSign's right to 
>operate the .com registry 

This is the part that gives me the most trouble - even more than
reversing the policy on splitting the Registrar business out.

First we need to remember that *.com accounts for around 65% of all
domain name registrations in the world (www.domainstats.com).  This is
not some new untested TLD but the main one the world uses. I am very
hesitant about giving any company a presumptive right of renewal to
*.com until such a time as it is under say 33% of the world market -
ie competition is working.  If Verisign wanted to negotiate this in a
couple of years it might be fine but at this stage giving away an
eternal presumptive right to *.com seems to be blunt nuts.

The argument is now just about whether NSI would keep *.com.  Kent
argues that even under existing contract it could tie ICANN up in
lawsuits.  That may be the case (incidentally I don't believe policy
should be made on the basis of we had better give it to them anyway as
they will sue us if we don't, even if they are not the best company to
provide the service), but it ignores the competitive pressures on
price and service which will be lost if NSI gain a presumptive right
to *.com.  Anyone who has worked in a competitive industry knows what
a difference having to retender can make.

So a huge big negative for the Internet community on this point.
*.com comprises 65% of the world's domains and is just too big to give
a presumptive right to, at this stage.

>In addition, VeriSign will commit to invest no less than $200 million 
>in research and development activities, and resulting improvements, 
>in order to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com registry. 

This sounds good but again I wonder what the figures really mean.
Perhaps NSI would be spending this money anyway as a sensible
investment to make more money.  This comes to $30 million a year.  I
would be interested in more details of what exactly will be funded
with this expenditure.  $200 million for the rights to *.com forever
seems a bloody good deal if I was a NSI shareholder but it is hard to
see how what the actual benefits for Internet community is.  

>5. The requirement in Section 23 for the separation of legal ownership 
>of the VeriSign registry and registrar businesses would be eliminated, 

How anyone can not call this a policy reversal I do not know.  I mean
this is almost the main reason ICANN was created.  To have the staff
offer it up as a bargaining piece with no consultation is simply
staggering, but anyway onto the merits.

There are several pitfalls here.  Firstly once the ban on being a
Registrar is gone there is nothing to stop NSI aggressively acquiring
other Registrars to end up again as a huge near monopoly.  Also even
with full competition NSI still have more domain entries than every
other Registrar combined and are almost five times larger than the 2nd
largest Registrar.

The ICANN staff assert there have been no complaints about NSI giving
unfavourable treatment to other Registrars (I note though that at
least one Registrar disputes that).  This however is in an environment
where NSI knows it will be losing its Registrar business.  There is
some risk that the combination of keeping its Registrar business and
gaining a near permanent grip on *.com, could lead to an environment
where there are more complaints.

I can not see the merit in agreeing to a policy where we create a
permanent potential conflict of interest with one company being
Registry and Registrar.  I believe the Internet community will be far
far better served with NSI concentrating on being a superb Registry
and 190 other companies concentrating on providing excellent *.com
registrar services.

>7. In all three of these new registry agreements, the existing limits on 
>VeriSign's responsibility to share in the cost recovery efforts of ICANN 
>would be amended to conform to the relevant provisions of the registry 
>agreements with the other registry operators that have been negotiated. 

Okay can someone who knows the details please clarify whether this in
practice is likely to mean a cent more to ICANN or not, and if so how
much.

>B. Registry Operator may, at its option and with thirty days written notice 
>to ICANN and to all ICANN-accredited registrars, revise the prices charged 
>to registrars under the Registrar License and Agreement

This is a new clause not in the existing contract.  It seems to allow
NSI to increase prices easier than it can at the moment.  This IMO is
a bad thing.  In fact with registrations doubling every year or so I
suggest we should be looking at price decreases only.  Again if
someone can provide exact meaning that would be good.

My overall conclusion is that the proposed changes are risky,
impossible to reverse and overall the benefits to the Internet
Community are not matched by the disadvantages they bring.  They
increase the chance of monopolistic behaviour which seems to go
against everything ICANN was set up to do.

There are parts of the proposal which have merit and with some changes
could be made more acceptable.  However to my regret NSI and the ICANN
staff have made this an all or nothing deal which is not open to
compromise.  Therefore I believe the ICANN Board is duty bound not to
agree to the proposal and enforce the existing agreements which have
widespread community support.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #277
************************