Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #297
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Tuesday, March 20 2001           Volume 01 : Number 297

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:20:18 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution ))

- --=====================_14908367==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

On 19:29 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Take a look at the last slide of the PowerPoint presentation at
>http://www.gtldregistries.org/VeriSign_Global_Registry_Update.ppt

Sorry it did not work for me?

Chuck,
I am sorry to say that negative spirits like some of us will think
something like this:

- - VeriSign plans to spend M$ 20 a year during 10 years to develop
   their Galaxy.
- - why do they want to talk about this now? Would that mean there
   is an advantage to do it?
- - if there is an advantage it can only be to make that investment in
   a way the support of the iCANN will help VeriSign, right?
- - why would iCANN support help VeriSIgn unless that investment
   without the iCANN support will not please the community?

My personal feeling is that the Galaxy you plan will use a super
DNS system (in competition/replacement of the CRADA) with some
non compatible value added, and that proposing the other TLDs to
join will amount to tell the ISPs "favor the VeriDNSign" and the
iCANN "look all the money we agreed to spend for you: please
make sure new TLDs use VeriDNSign".

As you may recall the iCANN wants to over centralize the DNS
and kill the Inclusive roots against its bylaws. More and more
abuse of dominant position in the offing. Against MS this was the
Justice Department and some States. In this case it will be
a few Govs. Where is the good for VeriSign, the iCANN and
for us all?

Let have the M$ on a reserved fund jointly managed by consensus.

Jefsey

>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

- --=====================_14908367==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<div align="center">
On 19:29 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite></div>
Take a look at the last slide of the PowerPoint presentation at<br>
<a href="http://www.gtldregistries.org/VeriSign_Global_Registry_Update.ppt" eudora="autourl">http://www.gtldregistries.org/VeriSign_Global_Registry_Update.ppt</a></blockquote><br>
Sorry it did not work for me?<br>
<br>
Chuck,<br>
I am sorry to say that negative spirits like some of us will think<br>
something like this:<br>
<br>
- - VeriSign plans to spend M$ 20 a year during 10 years to develop<br>
&nbsp; their Galaxy.<br>
- - why do they want to talk about this now? Would that mean there<br>
&nbsp; is an advantage to do it?<br>
- - if there is an advantage it can only be to make that investment 
in<br>
&nbsp; a way the support of the iCANN will help VeriSign, right?<br>
- - why would iCANN support help VeriSIgn unless that investment <br>
&nbsp; without the iCANN support will not please the community?<br>
<br>
My personal feeling is that the Galaxy you plan will use a super<br>
DNS system (in competition/replacement of the CRADA) with some<br>
non compatible value added, and that proposing the other TLDs to<br>
join will amount to tell the ISPs &quot;favor the VeriDNSign&quot; and
the <br>
iCANN &quot;look all the money we agreed to spend for you: please<br>
make sure new TLDs use VeriDNSign&quot;.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
As you may recall the iCANN wants to over centralize the DNS <br>
and kill the Inclusive roots against its bylaws. More and more<br>
abuse of dominant position in the offing. Against MS this was the<br>
Justice Department and some States. In this case it will be<br>
a few Govs. Where is the good for VeriSign, the iCANN and <br>
for us all? <br>
<br>
Let have the M$ on a reserved fund jointly managed by consensus.<br>
<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Chuck<br>
<br>
&nbsp;-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Marc Schneiders
[<a href="mailto:[email-masked]" eudora="autourl">mailto:[email-masked]</a>]
<br>
Sent:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Monday, March 19, 2001 1:21 
PM<br>
To:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>Gomes, Chuck<br>
Cc:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>[email-masked]<br>
Subject:<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>GTLD-SERVERS.NET
(RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft<br>
Resolution))<br>
<br>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, at 10:12 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:<br>
<br>
&gt; It is a commitment to invest at least $200M total in R&amp;D
and<br>
infrastructure<br>
&gt; improvements to improve the .com, .net and .org registries over 10
years.<br>
&gt; Part of that would be used to improve the com/net/org gTLD zone
server<br>
&gt; constellation which would be made available to the new .org registry
for<br>
one<br>
&gt; year for free and beyond that at terms to be determined later.&nbsp;
Also,<br>
other<br>
&gt; registries would be allowed access to that constellation and thereby
take<br>
&gt; advantage of by far the best zone server constellation
available.<br>
<br>
Is there perhaps a map somewhere, that shows where the<br>
GTLD-SERVERS.NET are? I am just curious, not doubting that it is 
the<br>
best constellation of zone servers :-)<br>
<br>
Marc Schneiders<br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_14908367==_.ALT--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:57:18 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [icann-eu] Re: Proposed statement on Verisign contract revision

Jeff Williams points out the two missing points:

On 02:32 20/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Milton and all,
>#10 looks very good as stated.  Well done Milton!
>Now for some additional amendments or clauses that might be or some
>interest with respect to the $200m and the $5m.... Any ideas on how
>these funds should be handled and also utilized?

1. it should be stated that the non profit organization will be publicly 
set-up or selected as per rules established by the BoD after discussion at 
the DNSO. It should also be stated that VeriSIgn will handle the M$ 5 to 
the selected/publicly set-up .org managing non-profit and not the iCANN.

2. that the M$ 200 will be used in addition to the normal investement of 
VeriSign and according to a budget to be reviewed by the concerned parties 
(DNSO, PSO, ASO, Registrars, @large) and publicly agreed by the BoD. And 
that it will serve to open competition and that developped softwares will 
be under the GNU licence.

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 08:14:11 -0500
From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] competition ?

Sorry for the question..

but... how much??? ;) je je je

Erick Iriarte

pd. some one have pis.co (a spiritual drink from peru ).

At 11:40 a.m. 3/19/2001 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>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
>

- --
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 19:09:23 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution ))

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>   On 19:29 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
> >Take a look at the last slide of the PowerPoint presentation at
> >http://www.gtldregistries.org/VeriSign_Global_Registry_Update.ppt
>
> Sorry it did not work for me?
>
> Chuck,
> I am sorry to say that negative spirits like some of us will think
> something like this:
>
> - VeriSign plans to spend M$ 20 a year during 10 years to develop
>    their Galaxy.

  I don't see that Verisign investing in their own future is a bad thing

for the stakeholder community, per se...  However the $20m/year
going to ICANN is a different matter entirely for a number of reasons.
One of those reasons is that it would be a direct tax deduction to
Verisign,
for instance.  But these funds should be earmarked, and not necessarily
just for "Registry" development for Versign or with Versign.....

>
> - why do they want to talk about this now? Would that mean there
>    is an advantage to do it?

  A big tax write off for one thing....

>
> - if there is an advantage it can only be to make that investment in
>    a way the support of the iCANN will help VeriSign, right?

  Right!  >;)

>
> - why would iCANN support help VeriSIgn unless that investment
>    without the iCANN support will not please the community?

  Good question.  I think the answer is relatively simple and already
known
to all here, or at least most....

>
>
> My personal feeling is that the Galaxy you plan will use a super
> DNS system (in competition/replacement of the CRADA) with some
> non compatible value added, and that proposing the other TLDs to
> join will amount to tell the ISPs "favor the VeriDNSign" and the
> iCANN "look all the money we agreed to spend for you: please
> make sure new TLDs use VeriDNSign".

  A good possibility, of course here....

>
>
> As you may recall the iCANN wants to over centralize the DNS
> and kill the Inclusive roots against its bylaws. More and more
> abuse of dominant position in the offing. Against MS this was the
> Justice Department and some States. In this case it will be
> a few Govs. Where is the good for VeriSign, the iCANN and
> for us all?

  They stand the chance of changing for a very long time the dynamics of

the Internet, is the the good FOR Verisign and ICANN, but not
necessarily
for the stakeholder...

>
>
> Let have the M$ on a reserved fund jointly managed by consensus.

Reserved fund, yes.  Managed by consensus, never happen, and shouldn't
happen....

>
>
> Jefsey

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 09:20:17 -0000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Corrections and Additions to my Post

I think I've been confused with Mike Roberts and statements made by him
have been attributed to me.   Please note that - far from claiming that the
proposed new agreement negotiated by Verising and ICANN staff did not
involve any policy change - I argued strongly that it involves a critical
policy change that goes to the heart of the ICANN competition model and that
the Board should make no decision on this issue pending advice from the
DNSO.

The following seriously misrepresents my position:
> Also...the real-time scribe's notes from Erica Roberts:
>
> Roberts: Share Fockler's concern re demonstrating commitment to bottom-up
> process. Verisign negotiated a short-term extension on their cooperative
> agreement with the DoC (Amendment 11). Then government-NSI negotiation
came
> to include ICANN also (leading to Amendment 19). Proposed resolution was
> posted in September 1999, agreed to by Board in November 1999. Clock has
> been ticking ever since then. Have had discussions with Verisign since
last
> fall re how Verisign would satisfy obligations of contract. Staff never
> purported to reopen policy aspects of this matter, and do not purport to
do
> so now. Short, high-intensity dialogue began in January, leading to this
> document, which was posted on March 1, as soon as respective legal teams
> gave the go-ahead. So this was not a policy process, and is not an
> abrogation of ICANN's general bottom-up process.

I believe that the proposed new agreement represents a significant policy
change and that the DNSO must be given reasonable opportunity to consider
the proposal and provide advice to the Board.   If the Board wishes to
preserve the credibility of ICANN as a 'bottom up' organisation,  the Board
should take no decision on this matter until it has received advice from the
DNSO.

Erica

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Kendall Dawson" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 7:00 PM
Subject: [ga] Corrections and Additions to my Post

> My apologies.. I provided an incorrect link in my last post.
>
> I meant to point to this URL when I stated that
> "Louis Touton contradicts the statement and admits that there is another
> alternative"
>
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/scripts/rammaker.asp?s=cyber&dir=icann&file=ica
nn-031101b&start=04-00-45
>
> His exact quote was:
>
> "Not to negate that there might be other things in the world that could be
> adjusted in making one thing plus and one thing minus that better suits
> both parties as often happens in a negotiation"
>
> In the post that I sent... Louis continues to argue that there are no
other
> alternatives and when he says "there are no alternative but 'A' or 'B' "
..
> a bunch of people in the audience all blurt out at once.... "Why? Why
> not?"... pretty indicative of the overall feeling in the room.
>
> Also...the real-time scribe's notes from Erica Roberts:
>
> Roberts: Share Fockler's concern re demonstrating commitment to bottom-up
> process. Verisign negotiated a short-term extension on their cooperative
> agreement with the DoC (Amendment 11). Then government-NSI negotiation
came
> to include ICANN also (leading to Amendment 19). Proposed resolution was
> posted in September 1999, agreed to by Board in November 1999. Clock has
> been ticking ever since then. Have had discussions with Verisign since
last
> fall re how Verisign would satisfy obligations of contract. Staff never
> purported to reopen policy aspects of this matter, and do not purport to
do
> so now. Short, high-intensity dialogue began in January, leading to this
> document, which was posted on March 1, as soon as respective legal teams
> gave the go-ahead. So this was not a policy process, and is not an
> abrogation of ICANN's general bottom-up process.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kendall
>
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:16:08 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Poll up in the Booth

At 12:50 19/03/01 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         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."  

Jon and all,

I understand the point, but the problem with a straw poll is that once a
consensus is apparent, other posters (I'm thinking of James Seng's valuable
posting) may not exactly be encouraged to post contrary opinions.
This is what an anonymous poll is for.

However, the results so far indicate that you are right.

May I remind all that the poll is still open and that your vote is sought.

- --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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 21:16:59 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Verisign Poll up in the Booth

Hello Joop,

Monday, March 19, 2001, 2:16:08 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 12:50 19/03/01 -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>         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."  

> Jon and all,

> I understand the point, but the problem with a straw poll is that once a
> consensus is apparent, other posters (I'm thinking of James Seng's valuable
> posting) may not exactly be encouraged to post contrary opinions.
> This is what an anonymous poll is for.

I don't know that the GA has seen that type of behavior, really.  If
anything just the opposite.  The appearance of a developing consensus
on something tends to draw out the opposition a little more than
normal.

The IP constituency is usually a good example of this.  When they see
something not going their way, they tend to try and rally their people
to get involved and speak loudly.

The lack of that here makes me think that they are not that keen on
the new contract either.

Does anyone with some actual knowledge of any discussion amongst them
have a more legitimate measure of their position on this issue?  It's
odd to see none of them weighing in on this, except for Marilyn, who
is good about keeping active on issues she both agrees and disagrees
with, and is the exception to the "typical" "IP" type GA Participant.

- -- 
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:40:53 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Advantages to Option B

The following is Chuck Gomes' personal opinion and is not presented as a
VeriSign position.  References to agreement sections are provided in
parentheses; 'com' refers to the new .com agreement; 'new' refers to any of
the new agreements for .net, .org or the new gTLDs; 'net' refers
specifically to the new .net agreement; 'org' refers specifically to the new
.org agreement; and 'old' refers to the existing agreements for .com, .net
and .org.

Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:

1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)
2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
to Cerf)
3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.
Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
registrars.  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)
4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)
5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
definitely less favorable to VeriSign.
6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)
7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)
8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)
9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)
10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C)

Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for
these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
(com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).

As already stated at the beginning, the above is based on my personal
analysis of the old and new agreements.  (That analysis was primarily done
in route to and from Melbourne.)

P.S. - For those who are concerned about rights to data in the new
agreements, please read the following sections: com-II.12, new-3.13,
old-10).

- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 08:45:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Advantages to Option B

Please count me as one that weighs these benefits rather differently, as
noted below.  

I think a reasonable person could say that the $5 million for .org makes
this change worth it, but I don't personally think so.

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

[...]
> Option B Advantages to ICANN &/or the Internet Community:
> 
> 1. 10-year $200M investment in research and development and infrastructure
> to increase the efficiency and stability of the .com, .net and .org
> registries and the ability of ICANN accredited registrars to access those
> registries (Sclavos letter to Cerf)

I don't get this.  NSI will own the fruits, and it seems likely to me that
if it's commercially reasonable it will happen anyway.  We've seen no
data on how this is measured (is a new router counted?  rent of new
offices?  staff saleries and stock options?), and I just frankly have
trouble taking it seriously without that information.

Plus I don't understand how it would be enforced if NSI just didn't do it.
(But that's minor, my main point is the one above.)

> 2. $5M contribution for the creating of a new .org registry (Sclavos letter
> to Cerf)

This seems to me to be one of the two only real benefits, and by far the
larger of the two. But, for this price .com gets a degree of insurance
that .org is less likely to be a competitor.

> 3. Terms for VeriSign financial support to ICANN in the .com, .net and .org
> agreements are modified to be the same as that for the new gTLD registries.

Why is this a benefit?  How am I better off with a rich independent ICANN
beholden to a small group for its financing rather than a an ICANN that is
beholden to many.  'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

> Not only does this result in a replacement of the old fee caps but it also
> allows ICANN to greatly simplify its fee collection structure so that all
> fees are collected through registries instead of through both registries and
> registrars.  This adds additional responsibility to the VeriSign Registry
> while at the same time reducing fee collection costs and increasing
> efficiency for ICANN.  (com-II.7; new-3.14; old-6)

> 4. In addition to continuing the 'fire-wall' requirements in the old
> agreement, the NSI Registrar must become a separate corporate subsidiary of
> VeriSign. (com-II.23, new-23, old-21)

> 5. The .net and .org agreements become essentially the same as the new gTLD
> agreements with the exception of the term and any clauses specifically
> related to the gTLDs themselves.  Note: In my opinion, these terms are
> definitely less favorable to VeriSign.

Since I think all these contracts are a terrible error, a regulator's
charter for ICANN, this is hardly a selling point.

> 6. VeriSign will lose the .org TLD at the end of 2002, five years earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (org-5, old-23)

Again, part of the first major benefit.

> 7. The .net TLD will be re-competed at the end of 2005, 22 months earlier
> than under the existing agreement, assuming the 4-year extension after the
> separation of the Registry and Registrar.  (net-5, old-23)

A real, but minor, benefit.

> 8. The termination clause in the .net and .org agreements is expanded to
> include several additional causes for termination.  (new-5.4, old-23)

> 9. The new .org registry will be allowed to use VeriSign Global Registry
> Services gTLD server constellation for free for one year and thereafter, if
> the new registry so desires, at a price to be determined.  (org-5.1.5)

> 10. In the new .net and .org agreements, the list of possible topics for
> specifications and policies is expanded.  (new-4.2; old-3.C

NOT a benefit.  A detriment.

> 
> Whereas some may want to debate whether or not some of the above are clearly
> advantages to the Internet community at large, in my opinion, they are all
> advantages to ICANN and are all 'take-aways' for VeriSign.  In trade for

Strongly disagree.

> these 'take-aways,' which I think are very significant for VeriSign,
> VeriSign is given a clearer procedure for renewal for the .com registry
> (com-II.25) and the requirement to divest of the Registrar is removed if the
> Registrar is made a separate corporate subsidiary (com-II.23.C).
> 
> As already stated at the beginning, the above is based on my personal
> analysis of the old and new agreements.  (That analysis was primarily done
> in route to and from Melbourne.)
> 
> P.S. - For those who are concerned about rights to data in the new
> agreements, please read the following sections: com-II.12, new-3.13,
> old-10).
> 
> --
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's warm here.<--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 09:01:34 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: GTLD-SERVERS.NET (RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution ))

The constellation shown in this reference is considerably outdated.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Siegfried Langenbach [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 2:19 PM
To:	[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
- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:58:32 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

On the day of March 19, out of a total of 58 messages with this dateline, 
the following per-user posting counts were noted:

- - Jefsey Morfin: 8
- - Jeff Williams: 12
- - Chuck Gomes: 8

The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.

A large volume of posting is usually not an increase of information passed; 
on the contrary, it tends to reduce the number of people who read the 
posted messages, reducing the chance of those people sharing information 
with the other members of the list.

The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display 
consistent high volume posting.

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [email-masked]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [email-masked]

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:48:43 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> consistent high volume posting.

As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
Otherwise, I'll cede him four posts a day from my allotment.

     -- Bret

- --
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: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:46:53 -0600
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Posting counts

I am sure we all share Bret's sentiments.

Bret Fausett wrote:
> 
> Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > The list monitor will take action if participants continue to display
> > consistent high volume posting.
> 
> As the primary topic under discussion is the Verisign agreements, it's
> entirely appropriate that Mr. Gomes respond to the various comments. I'd
> suggest the limit not be enforced as to him for the next two weeks.
...

Indeed, I had written (but, held) the following observations, which I
now share:

I appreciate the service performed by Mr. Alvestrand during his term as
alternate chair.  He has been
instrumental in moving this body a long way toward functionality.  For
many, participation in that
process has required the imposition of rules which others (me, included)
do not consider to be
efficacious.  He has graciously suffered our disagreement and performed
the thankless task he has assumed. 

The instant case illustrates both the basis of our disagreement and its
amelioration under Harald's
administration. 

  - Chuck Gomes: 8 

  The recommended per-day posting limit for one list member is 5.

Obviously, everything Chuck has to say on this list is appreciated and
encouraged.  His "excesses" in
this case were in response to questions and objections on an issue of
significant current concern about
which he is peculiarly knowledgeable and, it appears, "lonely."  Thus,
the burden of explanation, if not
advocacy, falls almost exclusively upon his shoulders.  I don't think
any of us, including the list
administrator, wanted him to limit his participation in conformity with
the posting
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Thus, we should note Harald's flexible approach-- 

  ...The list monitor will take action if participants continue to
display consistent high volume posting.

I don't think Harald is suggesting that Chuck's participation has been
"consistently" excessive
within these stated parameters.
- --
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 #297
************************