Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #280
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 280

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:58:39 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:28:42AM -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
> >Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that
> >the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are
> >necessarily contradictory.
> 
> >This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
> >the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
> >and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.
> 
> If a decent contract could be negotiated , yes. But Verisign's
> unwillingness to negotiate - it's either option A or B - negates such a
> win-win proposition.

That doesn't follow.  In fact, vsgn's willingness or unwillingness to
negotiate is totally irrelevant.  There are a million completely
legitimate reasons why vsgn may not want to negotiate further -- there
could be other negotiations taking place over the sale of the registrar,
for example, that are contingent on the content of the current proposal. 

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:13:51 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

It is my understanding that the reason for a late start in the negotiations
of a new agreement had to do with the fact that there did not seem to be any
realistic chance of accomplishing such a task.  There was not to my
knowledge any intential effort to delay the process.  In fact, delaying it
had very negative consequences for us in the investment community.  The
sooner there is clarity in this regard the better for us.

Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:15 AM
To: vint cerf; Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 3:12 pm -0500 3/13/01, vint cerf wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>you have the right question: is the new proposal any better than the
default?
>
>As to the time frame, it is not entirely of our choosing. ICANN and
VeriSign
>began discussing an alternative to the current contract language rather
late
>in the game and the various deadlines dictate the time we have to make the
>choice.

1. Verisign started negotiations late, because that suited its purpose.

2. Verisign is refusing to extend the original contract, because that suits
its purpose.

3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
stands".

End of story.

- -- 
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
- --
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:05:27 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 03:33 AM 3/14/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>I just can't believe that anyone on the board, at
>Verisign, or in the DNSO can even think about policy changes which
>would have the effect to remove exiting domain names which were
>registered and are being used in good faith and according to the
>rules.

They are not considering such a change.

Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they are 
not a non-profit.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:24:35 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

A very clear statement about the changes contemplated for ORG would be
most helpful. I fully understand that Verisign is not the party to
give those :-) Still, it is, in my view, a major aspect in coming to a
decision for those in the DNSO.

- -- 
[email-masked]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 13:41 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> As has been made abundently clear many times already, VeriSign is fully
> prepared to proceed with the terms of the existing agreement and are ready
> to do so.  Option B just presents another choice that wasn't there before.
> The fact that there is little time left would be a weak reason to reject
> Option B if indeed it was better for ICANN and the Internet community.  It
> really shouldn't be that hard in the next two plus weeks to careful evaluate
> the merits of B.
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kendall Dawson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions
> 
> 
> At 06:15 AM 3/14/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:
> 
> >3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
> >stands".
> >
> >End of story.
> 
> 
> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the 
> original contract stand.
> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the 
> Internet as a whole.
> 
> 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
> --
> 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:30:25 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] No to Plan B, no to the Staff ruling

Andy,
this time I fully agree with you.

1) my concern about the ".org" owners was supported by a letter from
     Verisign to Vint Cerf I read somewhere. May be Verisign could copy
     it again. I was surprised to see that the letter was sent to Vint as
     MCI, VP and not as ICANN, Chair. I will try to find it back.

     For this I am against the change.

2) Obviously Staff and Joe Sims know about this for a long. This is
     the WG-Review story again. 30 days or less to comment and
     uncover a consensus.

     This has to stop.

     ICANN is not the Internet ruler. ICANN is the servant of the
     Internet. The majordomo. It is up to us to be the "net keepers"
     and to say "no". That "no" is to the contract which is poor.

     But mainly that "no" is to the Staff's and Joe Sims' methods.

     I understand that VeriSign defends its interests. But I do not
     understand why the ICANN is not defending our interests,
     and I do not see how we can control it. So the only way is to
     stop it. And pray and act to put an end to this policy.

Jefsey

BTW. "Governance" comes from the old french word "gouvernance"
which is the job of the "gouvenante", i.e. the house-keeper. The
true root of "governance" is therefore "net keeping" and not
"world ruling". If this may help... :-)

On 18:28 14/03/01, Andy Gardner said:
>At 9:06 am -0800 3/14/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> >> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
> >> original contract stand.
> >> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
> >> Internet as a whole.
> >
> >Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that
> >the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are
> >necessarily contradictory.
>
> >This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
> >the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
> >and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.
>
>If a decent contract could be negotiated , yes. But Verisign's
>unwillingness to negotiate - it's either option A or B - negates such a
>win-win proposition.
>
>That is, unless you consider the previous "negotiations" involving ICANN
>staff and Joe Sims. Joe and ICANN have proved time and time again that
>they're light years away from having the Internet Community's best
>interests at heart.
>
>And Joe seems so keen to have the new contract accepted. I wonder why?
>
>Verisign stockholder? (Via a trust of course)
>
>--
>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

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:07:46 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

>>I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
original contract stand.
What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
Internet as a whole.

Kendall<<

I agree. Let the current contract stand.

Come back later, when we have 6 months to review a new contract.
   ( ICANN should get  US$1.00 "one dollar" per name. )

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kendall Dawson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 06:15 AM 3/14/2001 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:

>3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
>stands".
>
>End of story.

I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
original contract stand.
What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
Internet as a whole.

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

- --
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:01:57 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board Decisions

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:41 AM (my local time)
Chuck Gomes <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As has been made abundently clear many times already, VeriSign is fully
> prepared to proceed with the terms of the existing agreement and are ready
> to do so.  Option B just presents another choice that wasn't there before.
> The fact that there is little time left would be a weak reason to reject
> Option B if indeed it was better for ICANN and the Internet community.  It
> really shouldn't be that hard in the next two plus weeks to careful evaluate
> the merits of B.

Hi Chuck

How are you?  Glad to see you back safely :-).

You are making a very logical point.  Regardless of the time-tabling it is
incumbent on all of us to evaluate the two proposals on their merits.

If Plan A's better, choose A.  If Plan B's better, choose B.
If you can't choose, for whatever reason, then it defaults to A.

Anything less would be a betrayal of trust placed in us by the internet
community.

Best regards
Patrick

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:00:33 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: ORG (Was Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 15:46 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-03-14 15:09:30 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Well, we all know that ICANN may have screwed up with the new TLDs.
> 
> However, there is one thing ICANN has not done so far, and that's to
> ruin an existing and well-established TLD.  (I'm leaving the
> alternativ dot-biz and other alt.root activities out of the picture
> for the moment, [...])

Just for this once, I will not bite :-)

> I believe that ruining or substantially changing a well-established
> TLD would be one of the few things ICANN could do in order to
> destroy even the strongest belief anyone may have in ICANN's
> commitment to guaranteeing the net's stability.  Such a decision
> would, basically, ruin the legitimacy of ICANN.

Yes, meaning that you think they will not do it?

> > There was an ICANN official quoted, saying that present
> > registrants in ORG could keep their names for another 'cycle',
> > IIRC. Unfortunately I have no source...
> 
> I'd really like to see that one.

So do I, but I saw it quoted in some message (email or webboard) and
kind find it back. I did, however, find interesting statements from
McLaughlin and Joe Sims and even Vint Cerf. You can read them here:

http://lists.netsol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103&L=domain-policy&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=11626

Basically they say nothing is decided yet. But there is this
consistent lack of clear assurances or promises that make me worried.

> > From whatever angle we look at it: changing the policy for ORG
> > does not benefit anyone, except perhaps Verisign, by making a
> > competiting TLD impotent.
> 
> Well, someone here (it may have been Kent Crispin, I'm not sure)
> made an interesting remark on the possibility of a differnet
> conflict resolution policy for a non-commercial dot-org.  

Yes, that would be interesting, but then I would want a *promise* and
one *before* the deal is swallowed. I do not believe those who now
suggest this as a possibility, will later on fight for it...

> However,
> the point made by some in the public comment forum - namely, that,
> in order to try new policies, new TLDs should be introduced - is
> still perfectly valid.

Exactly. So, away with any change in the ORG registration policies.

- -- 
[email-masked]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:42:00 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent,
you may be true. But the interests of the Staff are too much unclear
for us to be sure that what is at stake are the interest of VeriSign
and ours. It may very well be that VeriSign and us will suffer from a
"no". But if that "no" clarifies the situation, on the long range it will
be beneficial both to them and to us.

After all, I certainly appreciate that you and Chuck Gomes support
the VeriSign and BoD positions. But it would have been better if
you had done it six month ago. At this stage we would need Mike
Roberts and Joe Sims to explain why so late? What are the con
and pros for the internet community. What are the alternative
forecasts?  And Chuck to do the same from VeriSign's point of
view.  Then we could weight the propositions.

Sorry, but the "too late to discuss a good plan" trick is over.

Jefsey

On 18:06 14/03/01, Kent Crispin said:
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> > I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
> > original contract stand.
> > What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
> > Internet as a whole.
>
>Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that
>the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are
>necessarily contradictory.
>
>This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
>the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
>and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.
>
>--
>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

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:07:16 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

(Apologies for the late reply. This message from Saturday was
delivered to me today...)

Sorry, I have to disagree. What particular TLDs are added in this
crucial initial expansion of the DNS is a policy matter. Also e.g. the
choice for TLDs that have a different number of characters, which will
certainly confuse users.

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, at 23:40 [=GMT-0500], vint cerf wrote:

> DNSO was indeed consulted as to the policy for the creation of new
> TLDs and gave advice which the board accepted to select a modest number
> of TLDs to start this process. The actual selection of a particular TLD
> or party to operate its registry is not a policy matter, it is something
> that ICANN does - within the policy guidance of the board.
> 
>  At 05:13 AM 3/11/2001 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
> >Ultimately the point was that the DNSO was not consulted about the
> >selection of new TLDs.
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 16:11:26 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .ORG Names

At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>They are not considering such a change.
>
>Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
>way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they 
>are not a non-profit.
>
>d/

Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

- -- 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 08:25:03 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board Decisions

On Friday, March 16, 2001 6:05 AM (my local time)
Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that
> way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they are
> not a non-profit.

Hi Dave

Of course if that's true then Verisign could easily market the .org domain names
as hard as possible say "Quick, buy your .org now before it's too late".

Which I don't think is very desirable either.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:39:53 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 9:06:12 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the 
>> original contract stand.
>> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the 
>> Internet as a whole.

> Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that 
> the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are 
> necessarily contradictory.

> This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
> the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
> and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.

Not in the "new" contract.  Not at all.

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 13:43:04 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Dave,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 11:05:27 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:33 AM 3/14/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>>I just can't believe that anyone on the board, at
>>Verisign, or in the DNSO can even think about policy changes which
>>would have the effect to remove exiting domain names which were
>>registered and are being used in good faith and according to the
>>rules.

> They are not considering such a change.

> Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
> way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they are 
> not a non-profit.

You miss the point.  Any change in policy for this TLD is not only
inappropriate, but not in the best interests of the internet
community.

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:30:24 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

>>>Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.

Chuck Gomes<<

Chuck:

    I am happy that VeriSign is on that track. I believe it is in ICANN's
best interest to stay with the current contract at this time.

/Bruce James

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Andy Gardner'" <[email-masked]>; "vint cerf" <[email-masked]>;
"Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>; "Gomes, Chuck"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

It is my understanding that the reason for a late start in the negotiations
of a new agreement had to do with the fact that there did not seem to be any
realistic chance of accomplishing such a task.  There was not to my
knowledge any intential effort to delay the process.  In fact, delaying it
had very negative consequences for us in the investment community.  The
sooner there is clarity in this regard the better for us.

Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:15 AM
To: vint cerf; Roberto Gaetano; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 3:12 pm -0500 3/13/01, vint cerf wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>you have the right question: is the new proposal any better than the
default?
>
>As to the time frame, it is not entirely of our choosing. ICANN and
VeriSign
>began discussing an alternative to the current contract language rather
late
>in the game and the various deadlines dictate the time we have to make the
>choice.

1. Verisign started negotiations late, because that suited its purpose.

2. Verisign is refusing to extend the original contract, because that suits
its purpose.

3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
stands".

End of story.

- --
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
- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:28:22 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:11:26PM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >They are not considering such a change.
> >
> >Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
> >way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they 
> >are not a non-profit.
> >
> >d/
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

See Louis Touton's letter to the Names Council, 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html:

    The only substantive "policy" issue (of the type to be referred to
    a Supporting Organization under the bylaws) that appears to be
    raised by the proposed revisions is the future restrictions (if any)
    on .org, but if the VeriSign proposal is accepted that will in fact
    be the subject of ICANN process, including the DNSO, over the next
    year, and it does not require any action at this time. 

Louis' preceeding letter,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00894.html, explains 
very succinctly why the agreements themselves do not involve 
substantive policy changes:

    There are a variety of changes between the existing registry
    agreement and the three proposed ones, but they either (a) are not
    matters of policy (trimming back the .net extension from November
    2007 to January 2006 is an example of this); (b) involve the
    continuation of present policy (allowing the continued common
    ownership, with strict operational separation, is an example of
    this); or (c) simply bring VeriSign into line with the policies that
    were developed as a result of the new TLD program, which was
    initially considered in the DNSO (the conformance of the proposed
    .net and .org agreements to the new TLD template is an example of
    this). 

The sound and fury over the possibility of changes to the .org charter
comes from the ICANN staff's announcement at
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm,
where the future of .org is described as finding an appropriate
sponsoring agency to turn it over to.  However, 1) this description is
preceeded by the very important caveat "through some procedure yet to be
determined"; and 2) this description is a high level summary in document
that is basically a call for discussion.  I'm quite sure that the staff
wishes in hindsight that they hadn't been so creative there (personally
I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed. 

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:51:03 -0500
From: Kendall Dawson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] straw poll

My vote is for number 1:

Keep the current VeriSign contract

Kendall

Bruce James wrote:
- --------------------------------------------------
>>I suggest that we have a Straw Poll. This would speed things up.
>>
>>     1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.
>>
>>     2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.
>>
>>A simple vote for number 1 or 2. I think this would help the GA, as a whole.
>>
>>
>>/Bruce

- --
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:25:01 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:33 AM 3/14/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> >I just can't believe that anyone on the board, at
> >Verisign, or in the DNSO can even think about policy changes which
> >would have the effect to remove exiting domain names which were
> >registered and are being used in good faith and according to the
> >rules.
>
> They are not considering such a change.

  That's not what I have read from certain ICANN BoD members or at least
what they have implied, but not directly stated....

>
>
> Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that
> way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they are
> not a non-profit.

  Fine Dave.  Than is should be no problem for the ICANN BoD to
issue a policy statement or a clause in the new contract that states
clearly that no changes in the potentially new registry for .ORG
will be made in perpetuity.  Vint, and other BoD members can
you guys commit to this?

>
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #280
************************