Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #293
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 293

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

Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 10:44:39 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] straw poll

James -- Is this paper online somewhere? I'd like to read it. -- Bret

James Seng/Personal wrote:

> Have anyone take an a look "Guava Information Memo" distributed by Chase
> on the behalf of Verisign on their proposal sales of their Registrar?
> 
> If you havent, please do so. I will try to give a simple summary here.
> (For those who did read Guava, feel free to correct me.)

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:48:06 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re:[ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

- --part1_80.857a402.27e66af6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I also nominated in the ticket mode, and don't want my nominations lost as=20
Jefsey's exchange with Roberto suggests might be the case.  Therefore I ente=
r=20
nominations for two persons for GA Chair as follows in the required template=
:

Nominate (1)

1a. Full name of the nominee: =A0Danny Younger
1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
2a. Full name of the nominator: Phil King =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
2c. Type of GA membership: =A0GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,=20
GA-voting registry

Nominate (2)

1a. =A0Full name of the nominee? =A0Patrick Corliss
1b. =A0E-mail address of the nominee: =A0=[email-masked]
2a. =A0Full name of the nominator: =A0Phil King
2b. =A0E-mail address of the nominator: =[email-masked]
2c. =A0=A0Type of GA membership: =A0GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber=
,=20
GA-voting registry

Yo Felipe (I, Phillip)
Phil King
Butte MT USA
The Richest Hill On Earth!

- --part1_80.857a402.27e66af6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  COLOR=3D"#8000ff" SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Franklin Gothic Book" LANG=3D"0">I also nominated in=20=
the ticket mode, and don't want my nominations lost as=20
<BR>Jefsey's exchange with Roberto suggests might be the case. &nbsp;Therefo=
re I enter=20
<BR>nominations for two persons for GA Chair as follows in the required temp=
late:
<BR>
<BR>Nominate (1)
<BR>
<BR>1a. Full name of the nominee: =A0Danny Younger
<BR>1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
<BR>2a. Full name of the nominator: Phil King =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0
<BR>2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
<BR>2c. Type of GA membership: =A0GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,=20
<BR>GA-voting registry
<BR>
<BR>Nominate (2)
<BR>
<BR>1a. =A0Full name of the nominee? =A0Patrick Corliss
<BR>1b. =A0E-mail address of the nominee: =A0=[email-masked]
<BR>2a. =A0Full name of the nominator: =A0Phil King
<BR>2b. =A0E-mail address of the nominator: =[email-masked]
<BR>2c. =A0=A0Type of GA membership: =A0GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscr=
iber,=20
<BR>GA-voting registry
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Yo Felipe (I, Phillip)
<BR>Phil King
<BR>Butte MT USA
<BR>The Richest Hill On Earth!</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_80.857a402.27e66af6_boundary--
- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:06:24 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

The GAC is an advisory group, not an approval authority.

Chuck Gomes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:43 AM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] competition ?

Dear Peter,
If you consider what *you* could do in the best VeriSign interest
should you be in Stratton Scalvos seat, I think that Plan B is
a correct way for VeriSign to better make sure that their market
share does increase a lot and DN price stabilizes around $20.

On 11:01 18/03/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Presumably, VeriSign will have little to do with this area, except possibly
>as one of many registrars in the game.
>
>Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
>gTLDs in the marketplace?
>peter de Blanc

I am sure you can come with more action plans in Plan B to that
end than in Plan A. But that in any case the size effect of VeriSign
and their common (with the Staff) direspect for the bylaws (VeriSign
is a Member of the gTLD Constituency) may lead to think that Plan
B is just helping them more than plan A to become faster, to the
Intenet, what ATT is to telephone, IBM to computers and MicroSoft
to microcomputers. This is why I say this should fall under anti-Trust
scrutiny and GAC approval.

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
- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 13:14:14 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Dave,

Sunday, March 18, 2001, 7:52:09 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:12 AM 3/18/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>I do agree with you on the first part, but going further with the 
>>reasonment, I would assume that one person with the experience of Vint 
>>would have found a polite way to make the remark, would he have been 
>>willing to make clear (to Verisign and to the Internet community) that the 
>>future of .org is only determined by ICANN, and is not part of the negotiation.
>>
>>Having not seen that, I may suspect that this *is* indeed part of the deal.

> It isn't.

> I had a discussion with Vint about this, in Melbourne.

> When people go to school to learn to write and express themselves, the 
> focus in on learning to say what you mean.  In a politicized environment 
> like ICANN, the style of public speech needs something entirely 
> different:  Statements need to worry about protecting against what the 
> speaker does NOT mean.

> Think about how bizarre it is that you are willing to believe that 
> something is true simply because Vint's wording was not specific enough to 
> exclude it.

Because of the history of the way things are done inside ICANN, this
is normally the case.

This concern was, and still is today, a valid one.

- -- 
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:26:10 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

At 21:57 17/03/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

>I can't support that kind of a model.  Registries should be
>competitive as well.
>
I agree with that.
A "non-profit" bureaucracy running the registries is not going to benefit
anyone except little empire builders.

- --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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 17:44:03 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll

2.) Agree to the new VeriSign contract.  :)

Chuck Gomes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bruce James [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:32 AM
To:	[GA]
Subject:	[ga] GA Straw Poll

Thank you all for your input to our "Straw Poll".

I would like remind everyone that a "Straw Poll" is just that.....

    A non-binding feel of the GA and its view of the new contract.

    So far all of the "votes" have been "for" keeping the current contract
in place.

I welcome more "votes" either way:

    1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.

    2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 6:39 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] straw poll

I have already stated my position on the contract and given one of the
reasons
for my thinking.  I will most likely contribute other reasons as the
discussion
progresses.  In the Meantime:

I vote for retaining the existing contract.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:13:31 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

My understanding is as follows and as I recall Joe Sims confirmed much of
this in Melbourne:  VeriSign approached ICANN about the possibility of
renegotiating the agreements and proposed the $200M investment idea.  At
first, this seemed to be an unrealistic idea so VeriSign continued pursuing
the separation of its Registrar business.  Later, some interest was
communicated by ICANN and they then proposed the terms of the new
agreements.  Detailed negotiations of those terms then ensued.

I do not know specific time frames of the above, but I can tell you that
within VeriSign there was not much optimism about the possibility of
renegotiating until very late in the game, well into 2001.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	DPF [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:49 AM
To:	[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
- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 18:06:25 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Joop,

I know your questions were directed at Dave, but I hope you don't mind a
response from me.

1. In my opinion, competition would be enhanced if all registries have
relatively the same playing field.  Under the existing com/net/org
agreement, the terms are considerably different for VeriSign than for the
new gTLD unsponsored registries.  The terms in the new agreements make
significant progress in leveling the playing field.  The new .net and .org
agreements are practically identical to those in the new unsponsored TLD
agreements and the new .com agreement includes several changes that make
that agreement similar to the new unsponsored TLD agreements.
2. What loss of USG oversight?  ICANN will still have its MOU with the USG.
The new agreements simply do not need DoC's approval for changes in the
agreements like the existing com/net/org agreement.
3. There have been areas in the existing agreement where there is sufficient
ambiguity that it has made it difficult to take action.  A recent example of
this relates to the Multilingual Testbed.  We have been unable to take
certain actions that I believe would have been very beneficial to the
community at large because of disagreements between us and ICANN regarding
current contractual language.  I think we could have avoided many complaints
especially from the Asia Pacific region if the agreement was more specific.

Chuck Gomes

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Joop Teernstra [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:01 AM
To:	Dave Crocker; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

(Text deleted.) 

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?)

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 15:17:46 -0800
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA Straw Poll

> Thank you all for your input to our "Straw Poll".
> 
> I would like remind everyone that a "Straw Poll" is just that.....
> 
>     A non-binding feel of the GA and its view of the new contract.
> 
>     So far all of the "votes" have been "for" keeping the 
> current contract
> in place.
> 
> I welcome more "votes" either way:
> 
>     1.)  Keep the current VeriSign contract.
> 
>     2.)  Agree to the new VeriSign contract.

Option 1
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:27:19 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Kent,
I see that the "fairy tale" is developping. I acknowldge that the word
may be hurting to you and I apologize, but it is being now commonly
used and the soap script you propose boils down exactly to that.

If I may review...

On 15:46 18/03/01, Kent Crispin said:
> > I do agree with you on the first part, but going further with the
> > reasonment, I would assume that one person with the experience of Vint
> > would have found a polite way to make the remark, would he have been
> > willing to make clear (to Verisign and to the Internet community) that
> > the future of .org is only determined by ICANN, and is not part of the
> > negotiation.
> >
> > Having not seen that, I may suspect that this *is* indeed part of the
> > deal.
>
>But in my estimation that suspicion simply doesn't meet the "common
>sense" criteria.  Vint is chairman, indeed, but he isn't the entire
>board, and he simply can't guarantee how the board will vote.  Neither
>can the staff.  Mr Sclavos would be an idiot to believe that either Vint
>or the ICANN staff could guarantee such a thing, and common sense tells
>me that Mr Sclavos is not an idiot.  Therefore, nobody on either side of
>the negotiation can do much more than take the contracts at face value.

Mr. Sclavos not being an idiot and Vint being the tricky Chairman of iCANN
I doubt Mr. Sclavos writes a long letter like this one and Vint publishes and
leaks it without good reasons. I ran and posted an analysis of this letter and
I suppose there is much more in it that what this quick analysis shows.

IMHO this letter is for Mr. Sclavos to put Vint in front of a fait accompli 
and
Vint puts Stratton Scalvos in front of an other fait accompli. In 
publishing and
leaking the fax, he puts an hidden negotiation with the Staff into full light.
Again, please consider the letter of Esther Dyson to Ralph Nader. Esther
looked for allies, Vint plays it alone and count on his "opposition" to rise
the hell on the issue. This is why you miss information as his move is also
to squeeze your channels.

> > > >   The fact that I did not see so far neither a formal letter, nor 
> even a
> > > >   statement in Melbourne on the subject, makes me think that ICANN
> > > >   agrees with this approach.
> > >
> > >Of course.  It's a no-brainer, and is exactly what people on this list
> > >and elsewhere are clamoring for.
> > >
> >
> > You mean that of course Verisign decides the future of .org?
> > I think we have a misunderstanding here. I must have not been sufficiently
> > clear.
>
>Could be, I don't recall from the context above.  However, when you
>think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
>determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
>for .org to remain in vsgns hands.

I beg your pardon?

> > > >   Joe Sims, in fact, presented this as an advantage of the solution "B"
> > > >   (the new contract). And this makes me even more suspicious.
> > >
> > >Are you misreading what the above letter says?  Clearly, Mr Sclavos is
> > >concerned that ICANN will throw a bunch of people out of .org, and he
> > >has been reassured that won't happen.  This is precisely what people
> > >have been clamoring for.  Why on earth does that make you suspicious?
> > >
> >
> > The fact that ICANN will throw people out of .org is so absurd, from my
> > point of view, that I was not even taking this into consideration, and I
> > tend to believe that neither did Mr. Sclavos.
> > What I am fearing is that Verisign is willing to grant the $$$ only 
> subject
> > to conditions on the future charter of the registry and/or the
> > organizational type of the (future competing) Registry.
> >
> > Verisign uses a language in the letter that assumes that this is a 
> deal, and
> > states that this has been discussed.
> > Or do you think that one of the reasons Mr. Sclavos is CEO of Verisign and
> > we don't is that he writes one thing and implies another? ;>)
>
>I think Mr Sclavos dictated that letter to a secretary mainly as a
>polite message to the chair of the board of a company with whom his
>company has been dealing with.  The letter is not a contract, and indeed
>it is quite possible that Mr Sclavos dictated it in a hurry.
>[...]

ups! Now if I read you well, this is where the fairy tale is at its apex,
Mr. Stratton Sclavos sent that long written fax telling VP Vint Cerf
what Verisign had decided with Staff, as a pure courtesy because he
had 5 minutes to spare before receiving Andrew McLauglin. So the
disputed points by Touton, Sims, half the DNSO are just
discrepancies because Stratton had no time to reread the text (which
was most probably actually written by a secretary).

This shows the consideration you have for the iCANN and for the
professionnalism of Mr. Stratton Sclavos if you believe 1.5% of that
story.... and for the Members of this list if you believe the will buy that!

> > You rightfully said "[it] had been perverted". I lament that too. But this
> > cannot be fixed anymore.
> > It would be utterly unfair to apply a more restrictive charter after the
> > Registry has been "perverted" for some time: we have to live with that.
>
>No, I don't agree that it would be unfair to apply a more restrictive
>charter.  That depends entirely on the content of the charter, not on
>the act of applying a charter.

You say the iCANN and VeriSign must go by the facevalue of the contract
they negociate, .org registrants must go by the whimsical decisions of a
non profit to be created they never contracted with.

Kent, I always took you for a professional. You are much above that
kind of post.

> > > > I believe that that the only
> > > > sensible thing to do is to let it continue as is. If we really think
> > > > that a specific TLD has to be reserved to non-commercial
> > > > organizations, we just have to create one for the specific purpose,
> > > > instead of redesigning .org.
> > >
> > >That's fine, and if that's what the Internet community wants, that is
> > >indeed what they will get.  As I read the contract, there is nothing at
> > >all that determines what the registration policies for the new registry
> > >would be.
> >
> > Correct.
> > I was talking, though, about the statements on the letter about ICANN's
> > intentions, that have not been corrected by ICANN so far.
>
>It's a letter, not a contract.

This is the intent of the parties.

> > >Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ICANN staff
> > >was trying to get what they considered the best possible deal for the
> > >internet community out of those discussions, and let the community
> > >decide whether they were good enough.
> > >
> > >[...]
> > >
> > > >   The fact that the Registry that will inherit .org must be a 
> non-profit
> > > >   is spelled out in 5.1.4.
> > > >
> > > >   IANAL, but I believe that if ICANN wants to change this, Verisign may
> > > >   refuse to pay the $5M.
> > >
> > >I believe that the phrase "ICANN, at its sole discretion...", trumps that.
> > >
> >
> > Not really.
> > The phrase, conveniently cut in your quote, continues, and reads "ICANN in
> > it sole discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund future
> > operating costs of the non-profit entity designated by ICANN as successor
> > operator of the .org registry.".
> > My understanding is that the $$$ are conditional to the fact that the new
> > operator is non-profit.
>
>That is not the way I read it at all.  It seems fairly clear to me that
>using the funds to establish the endowment is at ICANN's sole discretion
>-- if ICANN decides to use the funds for something else, that is within the
>meaning of "at its sole discretion".  My best interpretation of this
>clause, in fact, is that ICANN can do whatever it wants with the money.

This is a new point. Is that part of the negotiation? Are you here speaking
on behalf of Mr. Sclavos, or is this a response by the Staff they want you
to try on VeriSign?

>Moreover, as has been pointed out, the non-profit status of the
>registry operator is completely independent of the policies of the tld.

This is unclear in the document. Is this again a new proposition through
you or a request from the Staff? Anyway both (an endowment and the
confirmed independance) would certainly not address the issue as far
as Staff and iCANN is concerned.

As far as VeriSign is concerned it would only confirm that VeriSign is
ready to pay M$200.000 and accept .org competition to stay a Registrar
and to secure the DN market.

As far as Staff is concerned (I suppose you here speak on behalf
of the Staff, I am afraid that the idea of them controlling $ 205.000.000
is frightfull to me...

But this proposition of yours means that this discussion at GA has
some positive impact and positions would change..

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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:10:27 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

Dear Chuck,
I was responding to Peter de Blanc,

On 22:06 18/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>The GAC is an advisory group, not an approval authority.
>Chuck Gomes

Peter knows as we all knows that GAC is an advisory group
by "organizations" which do not know about adviszing but
about governing. This is being learned for several months
since Mike Roberts initiated the concept of the letter to the
Govs members of the GAC about the ccTLDs Managers.

What Peter perfectly understood is this:

"why ccTLDs managers who may manage from 10 to 100.000
DNs would be subject to Govs approval and not a gTLD which
manages 15.000.000 of them, i.e. more than any ccTLD in its
own country."

But you are right I should have spelled it out. This is now done.
I will add that we recently had a Gov. response to the VeriSign
policy out of GAC Members control with China.

Jefsey

>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent:   Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:43 AM
>To:     [email-masked]
>Subject:        Re: [ga] competition ?
>
>Dear Peter,
>If you consider what *you* could do in the best VeriSign interest
>should you be in Stratton Scalvos seat, I think that Plan B is
>a correct way for VeriSign to better make sure that their market
>share does increase a lot and DN price stabilizes around $20.
>
>On 11:01 18/03/01, Peter de Blanc said:
> >Presumably, VeriSign will have little to do with this area, except possibly
> >as one of many registrars in the game.
> >
> >Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
> >gTLDs in the marketplace?
> >peter de Blanc
>
>I am sure you can come with more action plans in Plan B to that
>end than in Plan A. But that in any case the size effect of VeriSign
>and their common (with the Staff) direspect for the bylaws (VeriSign
>is a Member of the gTLD Constituency) may lead to think that Plan
>B is just helping them more than plan A to become faster, to the
>Intenet, what ATT is to telephone, IBM to computers and MicroSoft
>to microcomputers. This is why I say this should fall under anti-Trust
>scrutiny and GAC approval.
>
>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

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:41:37 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Chuck,
thank you for this confirmation.
Obviously dates would be of real interest to put the different events
into perspective.

On 00:13 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>My understanding is as follows and as I recall Joe Sims confirmed much of
>this in Melbourne:  VeriSign approached ICANN about the possibility of
>renegotiating the agreements and proposed the $200M investment idea.  At
>first, this seemed to be an unrealistic idea so VeriSign continued pursuing
>the separation of its Registrar business.  Later, some interest was
>communicated by ICANN and they then proposed the terms of the new
>agreements.  Detailed negotiations of those terms then ensued.

Kent spoke of an endowment into the iCANN: could you comment in this?

>I do not know specific time frames of the above, but I can tell you that
>within VeriSign there was not much optimism about the possibility of
>renegotiating until very late in the game, well into 2001.

So why the take-it or leav-it ultimatum.
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 22:50:53 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Special Attention Vinton Cerf to:Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems from this article that Vint Cerf is either ignoring the vast majority
of comments regarding these "Options" or he has a reading impairment
problem...  I wonder which one it is???

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> ICANN defers VeriSign decision
> By Stephen Withers, ZDNet Australia
> 13 March 2001
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/dailynews/story/0,2000013063,20208666,00.htm
>
> The ICANN board today deferred its decision on the VeriSign agreement, as
> foreshadowed by chairman Vint Cerf at yesterday's public forum.
>
> The board instead resolved to finalise the matter in a conference call scheduled
> for April 2, giving it time to receive and consider comments from the Domain
> Name Support Organisation and other interested parties.
>
> These comments can be lodged through ICANN's Web site or sent to
> [email-masked] until March 31.
>
> The board's discussion today suggested the weight of opinion favours "Option B".
> As happened at the public forum, most of the concerns expressed seemed to be
> about due process, rather than either of the options facing the board.
>
> "My view is that [Option B] is an improvement and a benefit," said Cerf, shortly
> before he left the meeting prior to the close of business.
>
> Following the discussion, Elliot Noss, president and CEO of registrar Tucows,
> said "This deal [Option B] is much preferred to the previous deal," although
> ICANN had missed "an opportunity to get concessions that would have been good
> for competition."
>
> <end quote>
>
> 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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:02:59 -0500
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

Peter de Blanc wrote:-
Does anyone think their (VeriSign's) market share will decrease with new
gTLDs in the marketplace?

- - Not me, and to back this up, let me quote a Domain rookie:-

"Good Dot Coms are not getting any cheaper.  

Personally, I would never purchase anything but DOT COMs because I want
emails sent to me.  A couple of DOT net owners I know are having this exact
problem.  Their customers are sending email to DOT coms.  And now the DOT
COM owners are threatening to sue for infringement.      

However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
morning, you've got yourself an asset.

Domain names are no different from any other commodity.  The right buyer
will beat down doors to find the owner of a good name.  And this person
will pay any price.  

This can be related to books, personal electronics, apparel, even real
estate.  For a nonbuyer it is a price issue.  For a targeted buyer, it's
how soon you can sell it.  

Infomercials don't sell goods for $129, not 99, not 59, in fact not even
49, but just two payments of 24.95.

A piece of real estate could be appraised for 100K, and sold for 90k-110K. 
To the right buyer, he might just pay 150K.  Why?  Because he likes the
extra sunlight in the living room. 

I tend to agree that mortgage.com is worth more than
several million dollars.  The current owner has assets over 500 billion. 
Anytime someone types in emortgage, imortgage, abcmortgage, greatmortgage,
or anything else mortgage, they will be advertising for mortgage.com.  

Similarly, greatloans.com, abcloans, anything else loans.com will send
traffic to loans.com.

Regards,
Joanna

To view this thread:
http://www.afternic.com/index.cfm?a=th&fid=1005&tid=27337&mid=34832#34832

- --
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: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 23:19:04 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: schedule of action   Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the Veris ign deal

Marilyn and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems that the NCDNHC has already rendered it's decision.
Please review Milton Muelwer post from Friday March 16th on the
NCDNHC archives for further information....

Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> I also suggested earlier to others that the constituencies must form views,
> since they worked together to generate a NC resolution.
>
> I believe that several are hard at work to try to understand the
> issues/benefits/risks, etc.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:44 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: schedule of action Re[2]: [ga] Voting options for the
> Verisign deal
>
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:55:17 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >         It would make sense, I think, for any constituency that wants to
> >submit views in its own name to start its own process going now, without
> >regard to ours.  I gather that the registrars have already begun doing
> this.
>
> Can I endorse this view.  For historical reasons the consensus of the
> GA alone is unlikely to carry much weight (but will carry some).
> However if the DNSO reports each of the seven constituencies also has
> consulted its members and their views are X, then position X will be
> very hard for the Board to ignore.
>
> 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

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 #293
************************