Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #283
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 15 2001           Volume 01 : Number 283

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

Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 03:35:49 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board decisions

VeriSign proposed the idea of committing to an investment of $200m over 10
years if the agreement was successfully renegotiated.  ICANN then proposed
new terms and negotiations started.  Recognizing that I was not directly
involved in the negotiations, it appears to me that the terms proposed by
ICANN were basically the terms in the new gTLD agreements.  I conclude this
because the new .net and .org agreements are almost identical to the new
gTLD agreements.

So the short answer is: ICANN proposed the terms of the new agreement after
VeriSign suggested the possibility of the investment.  Joe Sims confirmed
this in Melbourne.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:04 AM
To: Bruce James; Gomes, Chuck; 'Andy Gardner'; vint cerf; Roberto
Gaetano; [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 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
- --
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 08:55:05 +0000
From: Joe Gluza <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Straw Poll

Keep the original contract.
 
Joe
- --
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 03:23:30 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Abuse complaint [Dave Crocker] - Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

WXW and all remaining assembly members,

  Such a request that I posted, and now has been seconded should and
is rightly addressed to the list.  Although there are some differences
in opinion on this issue, the practice has been fairly wide spread in
the
past.  As such, my request is in line with that practice....

William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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

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 03:31:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board decisions

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

  As suspected and thank you Patrick....  >;)  So it seems that the
proposed new contract is in the advantage of Verisign.  That's fine.
However it doesn't seem to be good enough for the rest of the
Stakeholder community in it's current form.  As such, it would seem
that some modification might be made that would make this new contract
more palatable or expectable to the stekeholde community.

  We [INEGroup] are tallying and following closely comments made here
and elsewhere (Other forums), so as to propose some additional conditions
or potential amendments to this proposed NEW DEAL for Verisign that
may be more expectable to the broad stakeholder community.  I will
post those in the next couple of days here....

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> 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

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 10:38:49 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Dave,
Betrayed by your bosses?

On 05:56 15/03/01, Dave Crocker said:
>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/

Seems from Stratton's wording ... for a long. Is that the reason why you 
want to ignore precise wording?

>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.

The issue are the changes decided now by NSI.

There is only one unproductive move here by Stratton Clavos. He should have 
been more carefull ... And Staff should have been more carefull: they 
should have forgot for a while to publish the letter online.

Jefsey

- --
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 22:49:06 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:13:51 -0500, you wrote:

>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 - can you (or someone who knows) clarify whether Verisign
approached ICANN with a proposal to change the existing contract, or
ICANN staff approached Verisign and when this contact first happened?

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:55:22 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:43:21 +1300, Joop wrote:
>At 07:48 15/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>>As much as I personally support (c) I do not think it should be
>>included as a voting option.  The staff and Verisign have made 100%
>>clear that it is (A) or (b) only and we risk diluting the results by
>>having a third option which has been ruled out.  If people do opt for
>>the status quo then perhaps there may be future opportunities to look
>>at enhancements but this is unknown.
>>
>Should option C (re-open negotiations) be included in a single set of
>options or should it be part of a sub-option that reads: 
>"In case there would a possibility for the Board to re-negotiate the
>Verisign contract then my preference would be 
>A. , B ,  or C",
>while the main option reads: "Assuming that no re-negotiations is possible,
>my preference is A,  or B." ?

As a sub-option I have no problems.  I want to avoid a situation where
the community says 80% want a delay, 15% want the status quo and 5%
want the new contract and this can be taken as a minority supporting
the status quo.

If however we can have result that say 82% want a time extension but
if none is possible then 68% want status quo and 32% want the new
proposal (all numbers examples) that will help make things clearer.

I don't think we should be voting on this yet - lets have more
discussion on the pros and cons and then run the poll over four days
or so.  It would be useful to have someone formally ask each
constituency chair to consider doing the same for their constituency.

>The NCDNHC is already gearing up for a vote, I understand.

Excellent.

>For the constituencies present in the GA it would be possible to enter
>voting options as specifically intended for each constituency voter.
>Like: "I(S)P constituency vote here" , "registrar constituency vote here",
>etc.

I think one should only do this if asked by a constituency.  Each can
organise their own election as they see fit. 

>With web-based voting this can be easily done. In this way, the GA can take
>the lead, for the benefit of some constituencies that may not get their act
>together in time.

The GA Chair needs to decide how the GA will vote.  I would suggest
there is some merit in having a voluntary constituency declaration as
such a breakdown may be useful analysis.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 22:59:10 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:05:27 -0800, you 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.

I agree that there is nothing in the existing proposal which will
change the status of *.org.  

However it seems clear that ICANN staff have been in talks about
changing the nature of *.org and people not being allowed to renew
domain names in *.org.  With the tendency of some in ICANN to claim
absolutely everything is a contractual not a policy issue one can not
be sure at some future stage an attempt might not be made to change
the registration criteria as part of the registry contract.

So yes nothing to worry about for now, but the behaviour gives
considerable to worry about for tomorrow.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 10:44:51 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Voting methods (Re: [ga] Chair NOMINATION)

At 07:20 14/03/2001 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > I would nominate him for chair and Patrick Corliss for co-chair.
> > In view of the 24-hour requirements on a GA chair, I think we really should
> > strive to elect a Chair and a co-chair, on a ticket -based approach,
> > ideally with a 12 hour time zone between them, so that they can divide the
> > burdens of the volunteer job  between them.
>
> > In other words, the candidates should propose their preferred "running
> > mate" before the election.
>
>I see no reason why the two must be so closely tied together, and at
>this stage this would amount to a major change in the manner of
>election.
>
>This should be tabled for discussion and brought up at another time
>when voting methods are open for discussion.

The voting methods are currently open for discussion.
A vote is to be issued tomorrow.

- --
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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 02:04:10 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Voting methods (Re: [ga] Chair NOMINATION)

Hello Harald,

Thursday, March 15, 2001, 1:44:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 07:20 14/03/2001 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> > I would nominate him for chair and Patrick Corliss for co-chair.
>> > In view of the 24-hour requirements on a GA chair, I think we really should
>> > strive to elect a Chair and a co-chair, on a ticket -based approach,
>> > ideally with a 12 hour time zone between them, so that they can divide the
>> > burdens of the volunteer job  between them.
>>
>> > In other words, the candidates should propose their preferred "running
>> > mate" before the election.
>>
>>I see no reason why the two must be so closely tied together, and at
>>this stage this would amount to a major change in the manner of
>>election.
>>
>>This should be tabled for discussion and brought up at another time
>>when voting methods are open for discussion.

> The voting methods are currently open for discussion.
> A vote is to be issued tomorrow.

And the methods for that vote are already set and have been sent out
to the voting registry.

Any changes at this stage would be inappropriate, wouldn't you agree,
Harald?

- -- 
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 04:19:54 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

  Interesting and somewhat insightful viewpoints here Patrick.
I have a few comments that address some of your perceptions
listed below.  (See my comments below)

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

  This is where the rub and concerns seem to be.  Is it wise to separate
out these agreements?  And is it, as part of that separation, wise to
separate registry and registrar functions to separate entities for ORG
and Net.

>
> 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.

  This is fine but there are all kinds of "Games" that can be played with these
funds.  I believe that most stakeholders would like to see these funds
specifically earmarked more exactingly.  As we say in MDR, the process
method used in determining who got the new gTLD's was very questionable
at best.  This is what could be done with .ORG and Net.  But the concern
is mostly with .ORG, and with good reason(s) of which have already been
mentioned on this forum.

>
>
> 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.

  This could also be a potential problem as well.  Some have complained
in how Verisign/NSI have managed registrations and renewals of DN's
in .COM, as with other registrars and the lack of oversight that ICANN
is suppose to be doing....

>
>
> 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.

  The question is why is .ORG so important and more important than
.NET to ICANN?

>
>
> 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.

  I find this hard to believe frankly.  It just doesn't make allot ot sense....

>
>
> 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.

  Good point.  And perhaps that until more new TLD's are introduced and
the UDRP is reformed, it would be wiser to wait before spinning off
.ORG and .NET....

>
>
> 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.

  Maybe yes and maybe no here. This would depend on WHICH gTLD's
are available, how they are marketed, and what will be the results of the
reform of the UDRP.

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

  I disagree here.  Verisign has something else in mind....

>
>
> 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

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 23:01:22 +1300
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

At 18:06 14/03/01 -0800, 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.
>
>Being scared is so much easier than focusing on the facts and actual merits 
>(and actual deficiencies) of the alternative contract.
>

Dave,

This is how it is with most political decisions. Most people do not have
the time for a thorough analysis and speak out instinctively to protect
their property or interests.
If they know that there is a  DNSO to advise the ICANN Board of their
concerns, and if they know that there is a proper structure in that DNSO ,
so that their concerns will be brought forward at the NC by representatives
who DO take the time for that analysis, they do not need to be scared. They
know that they *are* ICANN.

As it is now, I cannot blame any .org name holder who is not a
non-commercial incorporated entity to feel worried that his acquired rights
may be sold down the river in order to prop up Verisign's share price, now
probing  bottom.
Even non-commercial entities may be worried that the price of the service
will rise, because of the necessary bureaucracy to weed out everyone else.

I am looking forward to your own analysis. You stated in Melbourne that
both contracts suck (I actually tend to agree) , so we are waiting with
abated breath for your insights. 

If it would help you let me start you off:

1. the competition among TLD registries (improved with new contract?)
2. the loss of USG oversight (to the benefit of registrants?)
3. smoother relations between ICANN and NSI (to the benefit of registrants?)

I have not yet replied to the straw poll, because I am not yet done with my
own analysis. 
From the tightening up of some clauses, you can actually read Verisign' s
thinking.

What would help soften the opposition to the new deal would be a VERY
unambiguous statement from the ICANN Board, guaranteeing that the current
status quo in .org will not be touched.
The ICANN Board had this opportunity in Melbourne, but did not take it, in
spite of the clamour.
I am really surprised that Ogilvy has not come to the rescue here.

- --Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

- --
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 23:32:18 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:06:23 -0800, you 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.

Umm I am unsure if you are accusing me of floating the interpretation
or Verisign of having done so in their letter.  I have made it very
clear that I do not believe the status of *.org is an issue relating
to this contract proposal, but as part of a wider discussion on ICANN
it is certainly relevant.

>Being scared is so much easier than focusing on the facts and actual merits 
>(and actual deficiencies) of the alternative contract.

I can only trust you are not referring to me or you have faulty e-mail
Mr Crocker.  I spent several hours going through the merits of both
contracts and posted a multi-page analysis of them.  Apart from Mr
Gomes who helpfully supplied some missing info no-one has debated the
analysis I did which in some detail listed both the merits and
deficiencies.

My conclusion is that while I like some of the proposed changes the
overall "cost" is too high in reversing the registry/registrar split
policy and granting a presumptive right to *.com.  If it was only one
of these, and not both, I think it would be a far more beneficial
proposal.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 04:48:57 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

Thomas and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems to me that the language here is leaving allot open to
Consensus determination or some other process by which whom
will eventually end up with .ORG, should the new "Deal" be
approved, is not well defined.  I t should be in any GOOD
Contract of this nature, from what our legal staff is telling
me.

  Second here, is that it seems to me that ICANN is setting itself
up to manage .ORG itself.  This would meet the condition of
a non-profit company managing .ORG.  It also somewhat explains
the $5m in ICANN's hands and they could do just about anything with
that money even if another organization is not to become the registry
for .ORG.  So I would say that ICANN itself will be pocketing the
$5m for itself and any new registry for .ORG will get nothing or next
to none of these funds....  In the case that ICANN itself will be the
registry for .ORG, which is quite conceivable, of course they can than
justify keeping the $5m to do with as they wish as long as it is for the

.ORG registry of a related function of same....  And as many of you
know,
all kinds of games can be played with this; legal consulting fees to
associate's of Jones & Day, consulting fees to ex-ICANN BoD members
and staff, and even the justification of creating a CTO position within
ICANN itself so as to provide a salary for that position to someone that

has been particularly favorable to the ICANN BoD in the past, like
someone
with "Operational" experience...  There are several candidates that come
to mind
here.  I am sure that many of you know who these people might be as
well,
without me naming names....  >;)

  So given the ICANN BoD's track record with handling funding, the
$5m will not last long even if another non-profit organization is to be
the NEW Registry for .ORG, and the ICANN BoD determines what
and how those funds are to be used should this occur.  Kinda slick, huh?

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> <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

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 23:41:34 +1300
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100, you wrote:

>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.

With all respect to Mr Sims he negotiated the proposal and has
vehemently defended it on the Names Council list and may not be the
most neutral source of advice on the pros and cons.  

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

This is mentioned all the time but rarely why this is at all
beneficial to the Internet community except the new contract has less
for clever lawyers to play around with.

The new registries are a concept only at this stage while *.com has
65% of the world's domain names.

>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.  

Yep and this is all good stuff.  The question is whether it outweighs
the bad stuff.

>There's
>also the changes to the registry-registrar separation.

Which many Registrars are saying would be very bad it seems.

>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.

Yep.  And this removes a huge competitive pressure on Verisign not
just to be"okay" but to be "the best".

>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.

Oh of course.  Unless one was a moron one would not say oh you can
keep the registrar business and as we are felling cheerful you can
also keep *.com for all eternity and we don't want anything in return.
The question for me is whether the tradeoffs make up for it and I
can't see that they even come close.

>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.

I partly agree with you but my worry is that we are signing away *.com
for ever before we even have any inkling of how successful *.biz and
other competing TLDs may be.  I would be far less worried by this
proposal if it came at a stage when the new TLDS had been up and
operating for 6 - 12 months.

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: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:58:41 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

Hallo David,

just to let you know that you have supporters.

siegfried

On 15 Mar 01, at 23:41, DPF wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:34:32 +1100, you wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> With all respect to Mr Sims he negotiated the proposal and has
> vehemently defended it on the Names Council list and may not be the
> most neutral source of advice on the pros and cons.  
> 
> >Some of the issues included that it would bring Verisign into line with all of
> >the new registries.  
> 
> This is mentioned all the time but rarely why this is at all
> beneficial to the Internet community except the new contract has less
> for clever lawyers to play around with.
> 
> The new registries are a concept only at this stage while *.com has
> 65% of the world's domain names.
> 
> >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.  
> 
> Yep and this is all good stuff.  The question is whether it outweighs
> the bad stuff.
> 
> >There's
> >also the changes to the registry-registrar separation.
> 
> Which many Registrars are saying would be very bad it seems.
> 
> >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.
> 
> Yep.  And this removes a huge competitive pressure on Verisign not
> just to be"okay" but to be "the best".
> 
> >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.
> 
> Oh of course.  Unless one was a moron one would not say oh you can
> keep the registrar business and as we are felling cheerful you can
> also keep *.com for all eternity and we don't want anything in return.
> The question for me is whether the tradeoffs make up for it and I
> can't see that they even come close.
> 
> >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.
> 
> I partly agree with you but my worry is that we are signing away *.com
> for ever before we even have any inkling of how successful *.biz and
> other competing TLDs may be.  I would be far less worried by this
> proposal if it came at a stage when the new TLDS had been up and
> operating for 6 - 12 months.
> 
> 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
> 
> 

- --
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 #283
************************