Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #296
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, March 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 296

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:07:40 +0100 (MET)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

> - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
> development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
> audit this.  

I see in:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

  In addition, VeriSign will commit to invest no less than $200 million 
  in research and development activities, and resulting improvements, 
  in order to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com registry. 

And in:
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

  To demonstrate our long-term commitment to the stability of the 
  Internet and to the domain name system, we would commit to invest
  $200 million over a ten-year period in research & development 
  and infrastructure to increase the efficiency and stability 
  of the .com, .net, and .org registries and the ability of 
  all ICANN-accredited registrars to access these registries. 

Question to VeriSign:
Are these "$200 million over a ten-year period" additional to
the planned VeriSign - NSI expenses in R & D and infrastructure  ?
Is it part to a new agreement (please provide URL) ?

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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 10:12:01 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

Elisabeth,

It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also, other
registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 9:08 AM
To:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	$200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

> - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
> development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
> audit this.  

I see in:
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm

  In addition, VeriSign will commit to invest no less than $200 million 
  in research and development activities, and resulting improvements, 
  in order to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com registry. 

And in:
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

  To demonstrate our long-term commitment to the stability of the 
  Internet and to the domain name system, we would commit to invest
  $200 million over a ten-year period in research & development 
  and infrastructure to increase the efficiency and stability 
  of the .com, .net, and .org registries and the ability of 
  all ICANN-accredited registrars to access these registries. 

Question to VeriSign:
Are these "$200 million over a ten-year period" additional to
the planned VeriSign - NSI expenses in R & D and infrastructure  ?
Is it part to a new agreement (please provide URL) ?

Elisabeth Porteneuve

- --
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 11:12:48 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

No, I suspect that one was initiated by us.  Keep in mind that I was not
directly involved in the negotiations.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Paul Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 11:03 AM
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	RE: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>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,
is this true also for the change allowing Verisign/NSI to continue
operating as a registrar ?

	/Paul

> -----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.
- --
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 09:08:38 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 09:08:52AM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >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.)

Sorry, I didn't express myself well.  I'm sure that Mr Sclavos
considered the letter very carefully, and probably had his lawyers draft
good parts of it.  But the facts remain: the contracts are distinct from
the letter; it is a letter to Vint, and not a letter to ICANN; Vint
can't unilaterally bind ICANN to anything; an appreciation of Vint's
personal committments to whatever is just an appreciation, and has no
legal significance.  You can sit and read the tea leaves however you
want, but why do you waste time doing that? Why not look at the
*contracts*?

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 09:36:34 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

I agree with this in principle, but in practice the .com agreement is more
favorable than any other (e.g. "presumptive renewal"). Why not completely
level the playing field and make all registry agreements standard?

It just makes no sense to me to give the operator of what has been a
monopoly registry business a more favorable contract than its would be
competitors and to do so in the name of competition. (And one solution might
be to amend the new TLD contracts to conform with the proposed .com, not
necessarily to pare the proposed .com back to the new TLD contracts.)
 
     -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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.

- --
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 19:09:43 +0100
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On 2001-03-19 09:08:38 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't express myself well.  I'm sure that Mr Sclavos
> considered the letter very carefully, and probably had his
> lawyers draft good parts of it.  But the facts remain: the
> contracts are distinct from the letter;

Still, this letter may be used as a hint in interpreting the
contracts' text in case of doubt.  

Since there are parts of - at least - the dot-org agreement which
are quite ambiguous (just consider that $5,000,000.- clause), this
letter _may_ become important in the future.

- -- 
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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 19:20:50 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution))

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
> improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
> Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
> year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also, other
> registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
> advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.

Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the
GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is the
best constellation of zone servers :-)

Marc Schneiders

- --
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 19:27:49 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution))

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
> improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
> Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
> year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also, other
> registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
> advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.

Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the
GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is the
best constellation of zone servers :-)

Marc Schneiders

- --
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 13:23:56 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

The fully level playing field comes in 2007 under the new agreements.  We
are better off staying with the existing agreement if there is no meaningful
incentive to renegotiate now.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Bret Fausett [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 12:37 PM
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

I agree with this in principle, but in practice the .com agreement is more
favorable than any other (e.g. "presumptive renewal"). Why not completely
level the playing field and make all registry agreements standard?

It just makes no sense to me to give the operator of what has been a
monopoly registry business a more favorable contract than its would be
competitors and to do so in the name of competition. (And one solution might
be to amend the new TLD contracts to conform with the proposed .com, not
necessarily to pare the proposed .com back to the new TLD contracts.)
 
     -- Bret

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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.

- --
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 13:29:17 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution ))

Take a look at the last slide of the PowerPoint presentation at
http://www.gtldregistries.org/VeriSign_Global_Registry_Update.ppt

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Marc Schneiders [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 1:21 PM
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft
Resolution))

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and
infrastructure
> improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
> Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for
one
> year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also,
other
> registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
> advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.

Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the
GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is the
best constellation of zone servers :-)

Marc Schneiders
- --
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 13:13:29 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Elisabeth,
>
> It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
> improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.

  Yes but no clause or provision in the contract commits Verisign to these
funds...  Shouldn't this be added in a clause in the new proposed contract?

>
> Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
> year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.

  Ah, so the kicker here is what comes LATER in terms of a fee structure?

>  Also, other
> registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
> advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.

  Possibly this will be true, possibly not.

>
>
> Chuck
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent:   Monday, March 19, 2001 9:08 AM
> To:     [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject:        $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)
>
> > - The ambiguity over what the $200 million to be invested in registry
> > development would actually be, and the lack of any clear process to
> > audit this.
>
> I see in:
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
>
>   In addition, VeriSign will commit to invest no less than $200 million
>   in research and development activities, and resulting improvements,
>   in order to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com registry.
>
> And in:
> http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm
>
>   To demonstrate our long-term commitment to the stability of the
>   Internet and to the domain name system, we would commit to invest
>   $200 million over a ten-year period in research & development
>   and infrastructure to increase the efficiency and stability
>   of the .com, .net, and .org registries and the ability of
>   all ICANN-accredited registrars to access these registries.
>
> Question to VeriSign:
> Are these "$200 million over a ten-year period" additional to
> the planned VeriSign - NSI expenses in R & D and infrastructure  ?
> Is it part to a new agreement (please provide URL) ?
>
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
>
> --
> 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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 11:04:40 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Would you object to giving the new TLD applicants the same terms and
conditions as found in the proposed .com agreement?

      -- Bret

Chuck Gomes wrote:
> The fully level playing field comes in 2007 under the new agreements.  We
> are better off staying with the existing agreement if there is no meaningful
> incentive to renegotiate now.

- --
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 20:18:50 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution))

see at

http://www.wia.org/pub/rootserv.html

siegfried

On 19 Mar 01, at 19:20, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
> > improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
> > Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
> > constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
> > year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also, other
> > registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
> > advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.
> 
> Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the
> GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is the
> best constellation of zone servers :-)
> 
> Marc Schneiders
> 
> 
> --
> 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 11:32:54 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[6]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Hello Chuck,

Monday, March 19, 2001, 5:17:23 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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.

Great! Then we can toss out the new contract completely, and
negotiate instead changes to the original contract that will close
some of the loop holes that clearly someone at Verisign had to have
pointed out to ICANN were there (and likely to be exploited) in order
to motivate them to even desire to sit at the table.

So if extortion isn't at play, Verisign will agree to changes to the
original contract that will close these loopholes, correct Chuck?

- -- 
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 11:25:54 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:09:43PM +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-03-19 09:08:38 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> Since there are parts of - at least - the dot-org agreement which
> are quite ambiguous (just consider that $5,000,000.- clause), this
> letter _may_ become important in the future.

1) The legal language in the contracts is far more precise than the
letter.  In particular, I believe that the clause concerning the
$5,000,000 is in fact quite clear, and not ambiguous at all.  

2) The *only* statement in the letter that has raised any question, to
my recollection, is the statement about appreciation of Vint's personal
committement to support a contract extension, if necessary.  This has
absolutely nothing to do with the terms of the contract, and has zero
information about the meaning of the terms of the contract.

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:17:22 -0800
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

At 07:12 AM 3/19/2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&D and infrastructure
>improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10 years.
>Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone server
>constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry for one
>year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.  Also, other
>registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby take
>advantage of by far the best zone server constellation available.claz

Chuck,

US$200M is such an impressive number, it is worth being very clear about 
the nature of the real expenses.  That requires a) answering Elizabeth's 
query more completely, and b) clarifying what the monies will be applied 
to.  US$20/year will buy one heck of a lot of infrastructure.

Note that Elizabeth asked whether this expenditure would be IN ADDITION to 
planned Verisign "R&D" expenses.

Note that it is even possible to list basic co-location and connectivity 
expenses under the language for R&D that is present.

Absent your providing clarifying language, this piece of the agreement 
appears to say no more than:

a) Verisign will spend at least US$20/year, for 10 years, to pay for 
registry hardware, software, connectivity and operations; and

b) This infrastructure will be made available to com, net and org.

A skeptic might suspect that the US$20M/year number is simply a low number 
for the expenditures that Verisign would be required to run the service; if 
there is anything unusual or incremental about this commitment, it is not 
clear what.

Points of continuing confusion:

1. The draft agreement refers only to com, while the letter refers to com, 
net and org;

2. The distinction between applying to money to "registry" services in 
general, versus specific access functions such as DNS and whois, is not 
clarified.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:38:09 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Poll - results so far

Dear all,

So far, I have:
- - 22 for keeping the current contract
- - 2 for moving to the new contract
- - 1 neither proposal

I will try to provide a statement that summarises the reasons for the 
choice, based on your comments.

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 12:50:11 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Poll up in the Booth

         A point of clarification, fwiw:

         Though the text of the two options on Joop's voting page is mine, 
I didn't propose that those be the two choices available in a vote.  The 
point of my message, a couple of days ago, was that the exchanges on the 
list had *already* taught us the information that a straw poll would 
generate: that maybe the list would reach consensus and maybe it would not, 
but that if it did it would be around "option 1."  I therefore suggested 
that we move immediately to the next step (David Farrar took on this job) 
- -- drafting an option one document so that the rest of the list could take 
potshots at it.  I agree that *if* one were drafting voting options, one 
should make all options available to the voters.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 01:23 PM 3/18/2001 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>GA members,
>
>As promised, I have provided an unofficial tool to measure the consensus
>or absence of consensus on the options open to the Board on the Verisign deal.
>
>I have followed both the consensus formulations of Jon Weinberg and the
>three option formulation, advocated by myself and David Farrar.
>The last option is conditional  to an "
>
>"In case it would be possible for ICANN to renegotiate the Verisign deal....."
>
>The Booth should stay open for a week to collect as many opinions as possible.
>The results are visible as they come in.
>
>Please use the comment line to express the reason for your vote.
>It would be much appreciated if those who already answered the straw poll
>with reasoned comment, would further summarize these comments in the Booth
>Archive.
>
>No password is needed to see these Polling Items in the Booth.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--joop
>
>The Polling Booth
>http://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

- --
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 21:50:40 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] ORG: please, sign!

Discussions about the future of ORG may not be enough to convince
those "in power". So I have set up a very simple protest page, which I
invite all ORG domain name owners to sign. Numbers may help...

Please, have a look at:

http://org-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-icanns-sellout-to-verisign.org/

If this doesn't work (some browsers cannot handle the maximum length
of domain names...), try:

http://disgrace.org/

Just to make sure: no email addresses will be published, just domain
names...

Thank you for your time!

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:40:51 -0600
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Poll - results so far

Thank you, Roberto, for "closing" the Straw Poll".

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 2:38 PM
Subject: [ga] Poll - results so far

Dear all,

So far, I have:
- - 22 for keeping the current contract
- - 2 for moving to the new contract
- - 1 neither proposal

I will try to provide a statement that summarises the reasons for the
choice, based on your comments.

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 23:06:12 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your response.

On 13:51 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>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.

I was talking about the M$ 200. The M$ 5 are said by Stratton to go to the 
first ORGANIC operation year (I hope a non profit could manage at a lesser 
budget and that the amount would cover a few years).

>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.

I was talking about the starting date to better understand who proposed what.

Now you agree that people are quite concerned and do a good job a sorting
out the issues: it would seem faire and clever to me that both iCANN and
VeriSign take advantage from it.

Let understand each other. A good contract is a good contract for all. In 
here, obviously people are first protecting the Internet Community 
immediate interests. But on middle and long term these interests are those 
of VeriSign. Those of the iCANN too, but the iCANN is a too small an 
organization to be really concerned by the middle and long term.

Basically people vote for statu quo. But there are a few points in Statu 
Quo which are negative (like the resale ability on a large scale) and 
points of interests in the Plan B: org by a non-profit (if not the iCANN), 
an M$ 200 endowment (if not use to enforce the "market" monopoly by a 
technical monopoly). These issues should be of real concern now for 
VeriSign: after this discussion enough has been said for VeriSign to better 
measure the people support to an anti-trust possible case. A tri-partite 
agreement including the stakeholders through the DNSO (according to the 
iCANN bylaws) and the Registrars (who should have a Constituency) would be 
IMHO a good warranty for all, starting with VeriSign.

Jefsey

>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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #296
************************