Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #295
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 295

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 04:36:39 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Special Attention Vinton Cerf to:Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement

Jefsey and all remaining assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> Dear Patrick and Jeff,
> We are here at a time when the whole future of the internet is
> really at stake. Positions taken today will certainly have a final
> impact on the people, the companies, the technologies (through
> the M$ 200 R&D) DNS development, access costs,and therefore
> on business alliances and corporations survivals. If I judge from
> the Chinese case: also on international policies.
>
> On 07:50 19/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
> >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???
>
> Jeff, there is also the possibhilty that Vint is playing tricky fox
> with them all, as he did for ".web".

  WHAT???  the .WEB position that Vint took was tricky???  How so?
I predicted what the ICANN BoD would do with .WEB before MDR,
and posted it right on this forum!   Nothing tricky or foxy about what
Vint's positions was and how he stated it!  You lost me totally on this one,
or you seem to have forgotten MDR rather quickly....

> Would he do it or not, our interest
> is that people do not know, and that he may claim that he is under vox
> populi's pressure.

  Well as we say down here in Texas, "If you can't stand the heat, get out
of the sun."

>
>
> >Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > > ICANN defers VeriSign decision
> > > By Stephen Withers, ZDNet Australia
> > > 13 March 2001
> > > These comments can be lodged through ICANN's Web site or sent to
> > > [email-masked] until March 31.
>
> Looks like our only to interfaces are Chuck Gomes and Louis Touton.
> I am not sure which one is the Internet Community best ally?

  Neither is an ally.  I respect Chuck allot, but he works for Versign.
Louis Touton, is a matter of conjecture of course, but I don't trust the
guy very much....

>
>
> > > The board's discussion today suggested the weight of opinion favours
> > "Option B".
>
> Weight in term of stakeholder number, country Govs or added bucks?

  Added bucks!  Money rules, most times, Jefsey....

>
>
> > > 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.
>
> May be Vint's list of con and pros would be more convincing than
> this view. "Prior to the close of business" might be an appropriate
> formula for many.
>
> > > 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
>
> We need all the elements to be put on the table.
> I wish to know when press quotes one Registrar against the
> others or one stakeholder in favor of VeriSign, who is what,
> who is related to SAIC/VeriSign.

  I don't think this matters all that much really.  Although it certainly could...

>
>
> Would some one know the Registrars group enough to either
> describe or ask one of them to describe the economic links
> between the field players?

  Don't really need to Jefsey.  Just do some basic ROI projections...

>
>
> Talking of feeling, mine is that we head towards a huge anti-trust
> international case in the years to come.

  Very possibly, yes....

> But in in the meanwhile
> and during its legal and international resolution the Internet will
> suffer instability and development delays.

  Yes, as it already has begun to do to some of the ICANN BoD's
gamesmanship....

> This will also affect the
> credibility of the iCANN or kill it. I would not bother would the IP
> addressing plan not to be at stake. It will also affect SAIC/VeriSign,
> and we have no more reason to see them hurt than we have to be
> hurt by them.
>
> This to say that we have all the elements to properly advise
> the Board and report to the press. Chuck Gomes is obviously trying
> to help: but the take it or leave it attitude from VeriSign does not help
> him and does not help us.

  Good point here!  But remember, Chuck works for Versign.  His
near term future at least is intertwined with them.  He is at least
somewhat predisposed to tow the company line....

>
>
> 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

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 04:41:11 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: [icann-eu] Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - Versign Contracts considerations

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Kent,
>
> Just a couple of short comments, because I think that we made our positions
> 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.
>
> What they are clamoring is that it is better (or at least a lesser evil)
> that .org stays with NSI than the Registrar stays with the Registry.
> And I agree with this approach.

  Exactly!  However I don not agree with this approach, and the vast
majority of our members (Stakeholders all) don't either.  In fact a
third
option is obtainable or possibly a much better objective.

  Our position is that the Registry and registrar function for .ORG and
.NET
should be separated from Versigh/NSI AND that .ORG and .NET registration
policy not be modified after such a separation is affected. Versign can
keep
.COM and the registry function for .COM as well.  Hence providing
separate
registries for .Com, .NET, and .ORG in separate organizations, be they
for-profit or non-profit.  In the case of .ORG, it should only be in a
non-profit organizations hands.

  Another point discussed with respect to the Versign contracts is the
$5m and $200m funding and how it should be fiduciary managed
so as to maximize the use of these funds, and yet still provide for
some small flexibility in their use...  I have already forwarded our
position on this issue last week.

  The final issue, and of great interest and importance as well is, the
process in which these issues are to be addressed and finally
determined.
The DNSO GA, the @large and the Constituencies must be in a majority
agreement before signing and execution of any contract can be
consummated.
The ICANN BoD doesn't seem to agree on this point rather strongly, which
is understandable, but not exceptable.

>
>
> >
> >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.
>
> Oh, yes! And we may even think that "it is quite possible" that the
> secretary him/herself drafted the letter and put it in the pile of documents
> to be signed (in a hurry). It's just about the monopoly in the domain name
> business, worthed only few billion dollars, and it's perfectly reasonable
> that it does not deserve more than few seconds of Mr. Sclavos' time.
>
> (Seriously, I thought you made above the assumption that Mr. Sclavos was not
> an idiot! This seems to contradict your assumption.)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:34:18 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

it's always fgood to have a chair with a sense of humor ;-)

peter

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 3:36 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

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

whis.ky?

;>)

Roberto

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 02:48:40 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Alexander,

Monday, March 19, 2001, 2:11:58 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> If it was
> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
> would do it if the courts allowed it to.

I don't see this as a bad thing.  No different than any other large
company doing the same thing.

They start from scratch.

- -- 
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:53:24 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Roberto,
you asked the straw poll to be documented so you might
pile up the reasons. May be some kind of a short draft would
be of interest now. I list myself:

- -  statu quo for org registrants and
- -  no business take away
- -  Registrar/Registry split for gTLDs
- -  M$ 5 to non-iCANN managed non profit organization
- -  M$ 200 endowment to be managed on public decisions
    according to the iCANN principles: to support competition,
    equal treatment to all

Do I miss one of the key issues?
Jefsey

PS. I am creating the ORGANIC association under the
       French non-profit law (100 years stability this year).
       Its purpose is to manage the ".org" registry in
       compliance with the iCANN and Internet community
       requirements and to participate to a competitive bid.
       I have the support of several organizations against the
       Digital Divide and the support to Developping Countries;
      SME and @large organizations.

       Please who ever is interested let me know. I am
       just assuming Secretariat. Articles, ByLaws, Chair,
       ExecCom etc... will obviously be voted by participants.

      (ORGANIC stands for .org associative network
       information center).

On 09:08 19/03/01, Roberto Gaetano said:
>Kent,
>
>Just a couple of short comments, because I think that we made our 
>positions 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.
>
>What they are clamoring is that it is better (or at least a lesser evil) 
>that .org stays with NSI than the Registrar stays with the Registry.
>And I agree with this approach.
>
>
>>
>>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.
>
>Oh, yes! And we may even think that "it is quite possible" that the 
>secretary him/herself drafted the letter and put it in the pile of 
>documents to be signed (in a hurry). It's just about the monopoly in the 
>domain name business, worthed only few billion dollars, and it's perfectly 
>reasonable that it does not deserve more than few seconds of Mr. Sclavos' time.
>
>(Seriously, I thought you made above the assumption that Mr. Sclavos was 
>not an idiot! This seems to contradict your assumption.)
>
>Regards
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 03:01:39 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Alexander,

Monday, March 19, 2001, 2:52:37 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hi William!

>>> If it was
>>> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
>>> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
>>> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
>>> would do it if the courts allowed it to.

>> I don't see this as a bad thing.  No different than any other large
>> company doing the same thing.
>>
>> They start from scratch.

> That's the question. If they license the trademark (thanks
> to Bret Fausett for pointing out this possibility) and
> have a strategic alliance (see James Seng's post), things
> could be basically unchanged for NSI customers.

If they do this, if they do that.

If they do this, we pretty much have the status quo, nothing really
changes, and they still have indirect control over the registry whose
market share is diving faster and faster every quarter.

We shouldn't give them additional benefits, which place them in an
even STRONGER position, and with many known and real detrimental
effects, simply because there is a chance they may show themselves to
be the slimy despicable bastards we all already know them to be and
find some way to circumvent the contract.

I suggest that they are a lot less likely to do that, because its not
just ICANN who is a party to the original contract, but the US
Government, who may react to pressure from Congress to take action
should NSI try and circumvent the contract provisions in such a way.

Verisign/NSI would risk losing the entire ball of wax?

Sorry, but I think these are mostly empty threats being used by
Verisign/NSI to extort concessions from ICANN and remove the USG as a
governing factor from the contracts.

Extortionists should not be conceded to.

- -- 
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: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:40:39 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

I put rhu.ms and gro.gs for sale.
(The customer was too drunk to make the money to pay me!)
Jefsey

On 08:35 19/03/01, Roberto Gaetano said:

>>However, if you have a domain that a drunk man can remember the next
>>morning, you've got yourself an asset.
>
>
>whis.ky?
>
>;>)
>
>Roberto
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
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 11:40:15 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

Dear Dassa,
On 08:35 19/03/01, Dassa said:
>With non-profit entities, there would not be a garnering of profit for 
>localised
>consumption as we currently see with the commercial entities.  You would 
>rather
>we have large commercial empire builders?

I think you are right if you go by your own experience of a non-profit SLD 
service. But why Stratton Sclavos' secretary would spend a few seconds in 
wrting VP Vint a few paragraphson the non-profit nature of the .org 
manager, about the $M 5 given to it and the M$ 200 in an R&D joint 
development plan with the iCANN and about the politically correct arguments 
to use to justifiy the ".org" transfer and changes, if the non profit 
organization was not to be in a way or another to be controlled by the iCANN?

The deal to me simple: VeriSign takes over the Registrar industry, iCANN 
get the funding to become a stand-alone organization through the .rog 
revenues and special registrant relations while they both together lock the 
TLD industry under their common control. Stratton is the boss and VP Vint 
is to take it or leave it. So confortable for the BoD (no more decision to 
take) that we may expect them to say "it is supported" and "has 
advantages". I would not be surprised Louis Touton is the President of the 
non profit to set-up and Joe Sims the legal advisor.

Frankly this would be excellent managing. But this would be pure "market 
monopoly". This is why if they do not have the GAC support one way or 
another today, they head towards an anti-trust case (please remember Len 
Lindon case: your Australian Judge refused it but his comments show he 
fully grasped the situation. He objected on the choice of the defendant and 
on procedural aspects).

Mike Roberts' letter to the Govs was a good move: "we ask you to review 
your own ccTLD manager, we take care of VeriSign..."  The ".biz" take away 
is also good test of the DoC and Congress/Senate.

The problem is that this Big Brother under building will not stand the 
review of the Govs, Laws and industry. So we head towards major network 
instability. It is also to think that the Nasdaq may not like it when it 
understands this risk of instability.

I must hower acknowledge it is in full line with VeriSign's intended policy 
described to its stock holders. Today there is an obvious consensus for 
stability between SAIC, IBM and ATT under the supervision of the DoC. I 
fear that it may not survive the "too much demanded" approach of VeriSign. 
ATT and IBM are for a long in business and have an experience and a vision 
VeriSign may not have yet.

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 05:43:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Alexander and all remaining assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hello Roberto!
>
> > I believe that, if there is the need to improve or better clarifie some
> > specific points in the current contract, this can be achieved just by
> > agreement of the parties without necessarily changing at the same time the
> > decision about separation between Registry and Registrar.
>
> After having read James Seng's mail
>   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01029.html

  Yes, this was interesting reading.  However some points were
either overlooked in Jame's comments or just not really thought of...
Verisign under either agreement could effect the same potential,
for instance.

>
> about a way VeriSign could follow the old agreement to
> the letter, but keep their de facto power, I have been
> trying to find out more about this. Bret Fausett asked
> something similar at the Public Forum in Melbourne:
>   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/melbourne/archive/scribe-icann-031201-pf.html

  Yes I believe you are referring to this question:
"B.   Fausett (#1252): Verisign said it might outsource all registrar and customer
service functionality back to Verisign for a    fee. Only change would be Verisign’s
share of profits, while technical services, customer support, trademarks, etc. would
remain the same. Would this be adequate (in ICANN’s view) under the November 1999
agreement?"

 to which Joe Sims and Vint Cerf replied:

"1.   Sims: If and when we have to deal with the question of what constitutes a legal
separation under the agreement, we    will make our views known to Verisign. But have
not gotten to that point with Verisign yet. Are not in a position to say without
knowing the details.
          2.   Cerf: Can Verisign sell the business to someone who retains Verisign to
operate the business for them?
          3.   Sims: If a “sham” transaction, it wouldn't be acceptable to us.
Question is whether the assets come under separate ownership."

>
>
> I am now doubtful as to whether VeriSign's understanding
> of option A is the same as our understanding, and if a
> *pseudo divestiture* really worked out, it would be the worst
> case scenario IMHO:
> -- VeriSign continues to control com/net/org at least until
>    2007, if not longer -- thus remains the dominant *registry*

  Maybe yes and maybe no.  But likely yes....

>
> -- VeriSign secures a dominant reseller/pseudo registrar
>    position by a strategic alliance with the NSI acquirer,
>    maybe even using the NSI name

  Also possible, but not a really big deal necessarily.

>
> -- VeriSign pays less than the new TLD registries (which
>    additionally all are registry-registrar-separated)
>    while having longer contracts

  This one was a "Gimme" at the time....

>
>
> Let me expand:
> In the time of the original agreements, it seemed to be
> a clean split. There was the company Network Solutions
> providing both registry operator and registrar services,
> so divestiture meant cutting the company in halves.

  No it was never a "Clean Split".  And it shouldn't have seemed so
either...

>
> Nowadays things have changed: After the purchase of NSI
> by VeriSign, there are additional services in question,
> some relating more directly, some more indirectly to
> domain name registration. You obviously don't have to be
> an ICANN-accredited registrar to sell domain names --
> e.g. CORE members are registering *via* CORE. If it was
> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
> would do it if the courts allowed it to.

  That's a BIG if.  But possible.  Again I don't see this as
argument for "Option B/New Deal".

>
>
> It's of course very difficult for someone who isn't into
> US contractual law to judge whether this would be possible,
> and it seems that the views of lawyers on both sides of
> the negotiating table have been differing, too.

  Oh it is possible, but not likely...

> The lack
> of time to tackle these questions thoroughly is frustrating,
> but the threat of a pseudo divestiture should probably be
> looked at seriously. (This may be one of points VeriSign
> wouldn't mention and ICANN cannot mention without
> endangering its position in possible future court proceedings.)
>
> To return to your (Roberto's) mail: I'm not sure whether
> the "clarification" of II.23 in the current contract
> would be resolved amicably. Or in a way that is beneficial
> to the Internet at large.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
> --
> 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 11:52:37 +0100
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hi William!

>> If it was
>> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
>> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
>> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
>> would do it if the courts allowed it to.

> I don't see this as a bad thing.  No different than any other large
> company doing the same thing.
>
> They start from scratch.

That's the question. If they license the trademark (thanks
to Bret Fausett for pointing out this possibility) and
have a strategic alliance (see James Seng's post), things
could be basically unchanged for NSI customers.

If they really start from scratch -- no problem. I'm just
worried that they will not, if they find some way.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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 07:51:03 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

I don't recall Kent's specific reference to an endowment but I would think
he was referring to the fact that VeriSign would place the $5M for the .org
registry into an endowment fund controlled by ICANN.  See the new .org
agreement, section 5.1.4.

With regard to the limited choices (just A or B), there are several reasons
for this.  I think Ivan Campos (ICANN board member) expressed it as
succinctly as possible in Melbourne when he pointed out that we already have
an agreement in place and what has happened is that a new option has been
put on the table so, if we don't like the new option, we may continue with
the existing situation.  Stratton also provided some information on this in
Melbourne when he shared that to drag this issue out longer would
unnecessarily prolong uncertainty for employees and investors; it is better
for us to just get a decision and move on.  Besides, it's not clear to me
that we will know much less come the end of March than we would 60 or 90
days out; people seem to be doing a thorough job of sorting out the issues
in the 30 day timeframe.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jefsey Morfin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:42 PM
To:	[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
- --
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 07:39:39 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Roberto,

I understand and in fact we have been trying to do this for over six months
with little success.  I was simply responding to the questions asked.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 2:45 AM
To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Chuck,

>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.

I believe that, if there is the need to improve or better clarifie some 
specific points in the current contract, this can be achieved just by 
agreement of the parties without necessarily changing at the same time the 
decision about separation between Registry and Registrar.

Regards
Roberto

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 08:17:23 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

William,

VeriSign extortion?  Most of the changes in the new agreements were proposed
by ICANN.  Your accusations don't make sense in light of that fact.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	William X. Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 6:02 AM
To:	Alexander Svensson
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Alexander,

Monday, March 19, 2001, 2:52:37 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Hi William!

>>> If it was
>>> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
>>> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
>>> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
>>> would do it if the courts allowed it to.

>> I don't see this as a bad thing.  No different than any other large
>> company doing the same thing.
>>
>> They start from scratch.

> That's the question. If they license the trademark (thanks
> to Bret Fausett for pointing out this possibility) and
> have a strategic alliance (see James Seng's post), things
> could be basically unchanged for NSI customers.

If they do this, if they do that.

If they do this, we pretty much have the status quo, nothing really
changes, and they still have indirect control over the registry whose
market share is diving faster and faster every quarter.

We shouldn't give them additional benefits, which place them in an
even STRONGER position, and with many known and real detrimental
effects, simply because there is a chance they may show themselves to
be the slimy despicable bastards we all already know them to be and
find some way to circumvent the contract.

I suggest that they are a lot less likely to do that, because its not
just ICANN who is a party to the original contract, but the US
Government, who may react to pressure from Congress to take action
should NSI try and circumvent the contract provisions in such a way.

Verisign/NSI would risk losing the entire ball of wax?

Sorry, but I think these are mostly empty threats being used by
Verisign/NSI to extort concessions from ICANN and remove the USG as a
governing factor from the contracts.

Extortionists should not be conceded to.

- -- 
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
- --
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 #295
************************