Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #282
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 282

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:58:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Greenwell <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 01:55 AM 3/14/2001, DPF wrote:
> >But I find it damn scary that some people could even consider that
> >existing registrants in a TLD would not be grand fathered if there is
> >a policy change.
>
> Indeed, the purpose of floating this particular, inventive interpretation
> is exactly so that people will be scared.

No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
read the letter from NSI.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                               Patrick Greenwell
                       Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

- --
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 19:06:24 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 6:18:56 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> This exchange is an excellent example of pronouncements issued with no 
> concern at all about the merits of an issue.

> Let's just treat ICANN as a set of abstractions and to hell with any real 
> concern for benefits or detriments.

> Thanks, folks, for such responsible participation.

Dave, I've asked, and so have others, for some statement from you of
the actual benefits to this deal, and your basis for supporting it.

Many of us have looked at the benefits, and seen none that outweigh
what are to most of us clear disadvantages and down and out right
potential for actual harm.

You accuse us of not discussing the merits, but many of us HAVE.  The
issue is that none of those that have have been able to come up with
any coherent reasons to support the new agreement.

So is it your contention that discussing the merits means only those
merits in support of it?

I haven't even seen you do that.

- -- 
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 19:14:55 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 02:15:13AM +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:
[...]
> > More important, "assurances" are a red herring and a rathole and a 
> > crutch.  What matters is what's in the documents.
> 
> Like this, you mean?
> 
> "ICANN has agreed that, at a minimum, existing registrants would be
> permitted to remain in the new .org registry for one renewal cycle
> under its new management." 
> (http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm)

That's a letter.  It is not one of the contracts.

> This letter makes clearer than all subsequent discussion, what is
> happening. NSI/Verisign wants an impotent ORG.

It may be a language barrier thing, but the above quote simply does not 
mean what you apparently think it means.  Quite the opposite.  

> Naturally we are left
> in the dark as much as possible, until the deal is done. And then
> Verisign can on the basis of the document cited above (published on
> ICANN's website), demand that ORG will be made into something that
> will not harm Verisign's business. How very clever. I do not buy it.

Correction:  You don't *understand* it.

- -- 
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 19:17:46 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:58:36PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
> read the letter from NSI.

The letter from NSI is not a contract.

- -- 
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 21:51:01 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 7:17 pm -0800 3/14/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:58:36PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>> No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
>> read the letter from NSI.
>
>The letter from NSI is not a contract.

The Crispy-Crockett duo are now in high gear, mirroring each others posts,
and I can tell Dave (at least) is unsure what to do, as his posts are
rapidly lowering in content. One recent one reminded me a bit of Jonathan
Cohen in Santiago, when he stood up after Peter Dengate-Thrush's speech to
the NC (which got a roudy round of applause), and could only manage to
blert out "that was full of inaccuracies and only an opinion" as an attempt
to dampen things down. Thank you Jonathan, but we'll decide for ourselves.

Someone's bosses are starting to panic and have signalled "go for throttle-up".

This is a sign that the rest of us have picked up the correct scent.

Please, everyone respond to the straw poll vote.

- -- 
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:34:54 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Andy,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 7:51:01 PM, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:17 pm -0800 3/14/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:58:36PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>>> No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
>>> read the letter from NSI.
>>
>>The letter from NSI is not a contract.

> The Crispy-Crockett duo are now in high gear, mirroring each others posts,
> and I can tell Dave (at least) is unsure what to do, as his posts are
> rapidly lowering in content. One recent one reminded me a bit of Jonathan
> Cohen in Santiago, when he stood up after Peter Dengate-Thrush's speech to
> the NC (which got a roudy round of applause), and could only manage to
> blert out "that was full of inaccuracies and only an opinion" as an attempt
> to dampen things down. Thank you Jonathan, but we'll decide for ourselves.

> Someone's bosses are starting to panic and have signalled "go for throttle-up".

> This is a sign that the rest of us have picked up the correct scent.

> Please, everyone respond to the straw poll vote.

I'm thinking the same, honestly if they really had valid reasons for
supporting the new contracts, they would have posted exactly what
benefits they see to it, rather than criticize those who see no
benefits, and trying to discount their points without responding with
anything of substance.

I'm open to listening, if someone who supports this new contract has
some valid and substantive reasons why it is to the benefit of the
internet commmunity.

- -- 
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 22:48:14 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

All remaining assembly members and the DNSO Chair,

  I believe that Dave Crocker's remarks are of an extremely abusive
nature and towards everyone on this forum.  I respectfully request
that either Mr. Crocker publicly apologize to the participants of this
forum forth with, or be disciplined under the Rules of this forum
as soon as possible.

Do I have a second?

Dave Crocker wrote:

> This exchange is an excellent example of pronouncements issued with no
> concern at all about the merits of an issue.
>
> Let's just treat ICANN as a set of abstractions and to hell with any real
> concern for benefits or detriments.
>
> Thanks, folks, for such responsible participation.
>
> d/
>
> At 08:29 AM 3/14/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> >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.
>
> ----------
> 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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:53:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Kent and all remaining assembly members,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 06:58:36PM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> > No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
> > read the letter from NSI.
>
> The letter from NSI is not a contract.

  Indeed the letter in question is NOT a contract.  However the references
to the proposed new contract in that letter are quite evident.  As such,
Andy's concern, and reference to the letter in question is relevant and
more than adequately concerning....
Referenced Letter can be located and again reviewed here:
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

Regards,

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> [email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 16:08:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

At 16:06 14/03/01 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

>The discussion on the names council list from Touton and Sims is very
>clear indeed.
>
>More important, "assurances" are a red herring and a rathole and a 
>crutch.  What matters is what's in the documents.
>

Sorry, but this comes from a world where black is white and white is black.
So far, the position of the Board (further confused by the press statements
from Mike Roberts) has not been made clear.
It seems that Verisign "expects" that ICANN makes .org strictly
non-commercial. Is there a quid pro quo somewhere?

There is such a thing as a pretty watertight commitment and that is what
the Internet community and especially the Individuals holding .org names
are waiting for.
Do we have to make the policy  formulation  here? Easy enough. 

- --
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 23:49:51 -0500
From: Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

I don't see what the rush is all about.  

My vote is for 1.) Keep the current VeriSign
contract.

I happen to hold a number of .org registrations,
and I like things just as they are for the time
being.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Hermes Network, Inc.

> 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.
- --
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 20:56:51 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 06:58 PM 3/14/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
>read the letter from NSI.

Ignoring entirely the matter of precise wording, since when does an NSI 
letter dictate an ICANN decision?

d/

ps.  In any event it would be far more productive to focus on the actual 
terms and conditions of the proposed changes for NSI, rather than being 
distracted by decisions that would be made later and not by NSI.

- ----------
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:04:22 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board decisions

>>>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<<

Hello Chuck,
This new contract did not present itself. Somebody proposed it. Who was that
exactly ?
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:13:02 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 8:56:51 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 06:58 PM 3/14/2001, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>>No "inventive interpretation" is necessary. All that is required is to
>>read the letter from NSI.

> Ignoring entirely the matter of precise wording, since when does an NSI 
> letter dictate an ICANN decision?

> d/

> ps.  In any event it would be far more productive to focus on the actual 
> terms and conditions of the proposed changes for NSI, rather than being 
> distracted by decisions that would be made later and not by NSI.

So when are you going to do that. Most of us have been doing that, and
find the terms lacking.

So I ask you for the third time, and the second time just this
evening, what do you find in this agreement that makes it preferable
over the existing one, and how do you see those benefits overweighing
the drawbacks that have been addressed here (And ignored by you) ?

- -- 
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 22:31:06 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG Names

On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 04:08:22PM +1300, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Sorry, but this comes from a world where black is white and white is black.
> So far, the position of the Board (further confused by the press statements
> from Mike Roberts) has not been made clear.

You are imagining black helicopters.  In fact, things are much simpler:
the position of the Board has not been made clear because the board
doesn't know yet what it's position is. 

> It seems that Verisign "expects" that ICANN makes .org strictly
> non-commercial. Is there a quid pro quo somewhere?

Doubtful in the extreme.  I don't think vsgn is overly concerned about 
what happens to .org, and I am pretty sure that the only reasons that 
there was any mention of .org being non-commercial was because 1) that 
is an implication of rfc1591, and 2) the people doing the negotiating 
thought that is what the internet community would want.

- -- 
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:46:26 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Seconded.
Joanna

  I believe that Dave Crocker's remarks are of an extremely abusive
nature and towards everyone on this forum.  I respectfully request
that either Mr. Crocker publicly apologize to the participants of this
forum forth with, or be disciplined under the Rules of this forum
as soon as possible.

Do I have a second?

Dave Crocker wrote:

> This exchange is an excellent example of pronouncements issued with no
> concern at all about the merits of an issue.
>
> Let's just treat ICANN as a set of abstractions and to hell with any real
> concern for benefits or detriments.
>
> Thanks, folks, for such responsible participation.
>
> d/
>
> At 08:29 AM 3/14/2001, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> >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.
>
> ----------
> 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

- --
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 23:21:33 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Joanna,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 10:46:26 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Seconded.
> Joanna

>   I believe that Dave Crocker's remarks are of an extremely abusive
> nature and towards everyone on this forum.  I respectfully request
> that either Mr. Crocker publicly apologize to the participants of this
> forum forth with, or be disciplined under the Rules of this forum
> as soon as possible.

No, this is beyond the bounds of the rules, and is not an appropriate
application of them.

Save the rules violation reports for serious violations.  I suggest
reading them for more clarification.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules-v0.2.html
I post them here for your reference:

The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
Not using offensive language

I also consider it inappropriate to CC such complaints to the public
list, as it encouraged abusive threads of people who do not like a
particular person or their position to jump on the bandwagon, which is
what was the intent of the original complainant on this thread, 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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:48:08 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Taken offlist so as not to disrupt substantive work in progress.
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:51:19 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Joanna,

Wednesday, March 14, 2001, 11:48:08 PM, Joanna Lane wrote:

> Taken offlist so as not to disrupt substantive work in progress.
> Joanna

Which is where this complaint belonged in the first place, off list,
where it would have been addressed properly.

- -- 
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:03:21 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] com/net/org versus proposed .com agreement

Thanks Alexander.

siegfried

On 14 Mar 01, at 14:22, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> 
> Changes between current .com/.net/.org agreement
> and proposed new .com agreement (section numbers
> refer to the new proposal)
> 
> ______________________________________________________
 - I.1. "Consensus Policies" defined as "specifications
>> I. Definitions:
......

- --
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 19:03:45 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board decisions

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:04 PM

From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>

> >>>Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
> agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.
>
> This new contract did not present itself. Somebody proposed it. Who was that
> exactly ?

Hi Joanna

In Melbourne, Joe Sims advised that Verisign was working on the divestiture
according to Plan A when they (Verisign) presented another option to ICANN
stafff for consideration.  ICANN staff rejected that particular proposal but
this opened the door to discussions.

Negotiators from both sides then jointly hammered out another, more suitable
alternative.  The final result apparently contained very little of the original
proposal.

I understand that Chuck Gomes (with Verisign Registry) was not part of this
process.
However this information is on the public record.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Board Decisions

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:13 PM (local time)
William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

> So I ask you for the third time, and the second time just this
> evening, what do you find in this agreement that makes it preferable
> over the existing one, and how do you see those benefits overweighing
> the drawbacks that have been addressed here (And ignored by you) ?

Hi William

In Melbourne, I saw two separate presentations made by Joe Sims.  In both of
these Joe describes both Plans and outlined their advantages and disadvantages
to ICANN and the community.   Schlavos separately outlined the advantages to
Verisign of Plan B.

I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against) but
would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.

Some of the issues included that it would bring Verisign into line with all of
the new registries.  It would also separate the .com, .net and .org agreements.
Dates were also shortened and caps removed.  Verisign agreed to provide $5
million to the new .org operator and $200 million in R&D type funding.  There's
also the changes to the registry-registrar separation.

My feeling was that the most important consideration was that Verisign would
have a "presumptive right" to renew .com.  Thus if Verisign managed the TLD
properly, it would be expected for them to continue with .com in perpetuity.

I would also say that some of the new arrangements were imposed by ICANN staff
(rather than requested by Verisign) as a trade-off for this presumptive right to
renew.  This includes the separation into three agreements and the loss of .org
and the possible loss of .net.

It should not be assumed that Verisign wants to "give away" .org.  Rather they
want to "keep" .com and were prepared to make significant sacrifices to achieve
that result.

Personally I believe that .com will be less valuable than people might think
given the introduction of new TLDs.  However, except for .biz, they are not very
attractive.  And even .biz is not general purpose because of its apparent focus
on "business" operations.

For those looking for a "hidden agenda" I would focus on the .com part of the
deal and ask ICANN when they plan to introduce more TLDs in a genuine
competitive framework.

My view is that it will be another few years yet before the proof of concept is
seen to be sufficiently well-tested to allow the introduction of more TLDs.

 So Verisign will continue to get a good run with .com for many years to come.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 00:40:07 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Board Decisions

Hello Patrick,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 12:34:32 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:13 PM (local time)
> William X. Walsh <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

>> So I ask you for the third time, and the second time just this
>> evening, what do you find in this agreement that makes it preferable
>> over the existing one, and how do you see those benefits overweighing
>> the drawbacks that have been addressed here (And ignored by you) ?

> Hi William

> In Melbourne, I saw two separate presentations made by Joe Sims.  In both of
> these Joe describes both Plans and outlined their advantages and disadvantages
> to ICANN and the community.   Schlavos separately outlined the advantages to
> Verisign of Plan B.

> I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against) but
> would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.

> Some of the issues included that it would bring Verisign into line with all of
> the new registries.

And what exactly are the benefits to this over the existing contract?
For all we know, the internet community is not benefited by having
those contacts be the same.

> It would also separate the .com, .net and .org agreements.

I consider this to be a drawback at this stage, to be honest, since it
further opens the door to the board considering inappropriate changes
in the policies of existing gTLDs like .org and .net.

This is not a selling point in my opinion, its a drawback.  I have
yet to see someone really justify this as a benefit.

> My feeling was that the most important consideration was that Verisign would
> have a "presumptive right" to renew .com.  Thus if Verisign managed the TLD
> properly, it would be expected for them to continue with .com in perpetuity.

And this is a benefit....to Verisign, but I'm not interested in how it
benefits them. We've established there are plenty of benefits to
Verisign in this agreement.  I want to know what the benefits to the
internet community are.

> I would also say that some of the new arrangements were imposed by ICANN staff
> (rather than requested by Verisign) as a trade-off for this presumptive right to
> renew.  This includes the separation into three agreements and the loss of .org
> and the possible loss of .net.

I still see no substantive evidence that spinning off .net and .org
brings any real benefit to the internet community.

I want someone to point out the real benefits that accrue to the
internet community, not to Verisign, and not to the ICANN
puppetmasters.

Dave and Kent seem to think there are such benefits, but neither of
them are able to present just what those benefits are in any kind of
specific manner.

- -- 
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 09:43:42 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

<http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-org-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm>:

        5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date,
        Registry Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the
        sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole
>       discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund
                               vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>       future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry.
        Registry Operator agrees that such funds, once paid to
        ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's
        designee, and that Registry Operator will have no ownership
        or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner
        in which they are used or disbursed.

Maybe some US lawyers here can enlighten us whether or not this
clause constructs an obligation for ICANN to assign .org to a
non-profit entity after NSI gives it up?

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #282
************************