Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #300
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, March 22 2001           Volume 01 : Number 300

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 23:21:46 +0100
From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

On 21 Mar 01, at 15:17, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
> Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
> Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."
> 
.... over 10 years, without any real plans ( I would not wonder if that 
would again be changed after 1 year )

..... but an revenue of at least 500M$ per year !

siegfried

- --
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 23:18:04 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

At 15:17 21/03/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
>Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
>Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."

one thing that is unclear in my mind is who would control the allocation of 
the USD 200M.
We tried this once before (the "domain name tax" that was struck down in 
the early days of paying for DNS names). I've got projects I could think of 
offhand that would eat around 20M, and I think they would benefit the 
Internet - but why should anyone believe my judgment?

- --
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:23:00 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

It is my understanding that VeriSign would control the spending of the
funds.  I am not aware of any companies that would commit to spending of
$200M and let everyone in the world decide how it would be spent.

Also, since this will be my fifth post today, let me respond to a comment by
Peter de Blanc earlier today.  He implied that VeriSign would make the
investment regardless of whether Option A or Option B was chosen.  I think I
can safely say that VeriSign would not commit to invest $200M in R&D and
infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net and .org registries if there
is considerable uncertainty about our future role with those registries.  We
are willing to commit to that level of investment with the added certainty
that Option B provides.  I also believe that this is the way any successful
business would behave.

Chuck (signing off until Thursday)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:18 PM
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	[email-masked]
Subject:	RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

At 15:17 21/03/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
>Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
>Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."

one thing that is unclear in my mind is who would control the allocation of 
the USD 200M.
We tried this once before (the "domain name tax" that was struck down in 
the early days of paying for DNS names). I've got projects I could think of 
offhand that would eat around 20M, and I think they would benefit the 
Internet - but why should anyone believe my judgment?

- --
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:22:05 -0800
From: "Christopher Ambler" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

> It is my understanding that VeriSign would control the spending of the
> funds.  I am not aware of any companies that would commit to spending of
> $200M and let everyone in the world decide how it would be spent.

Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just Verisign saying, "give us
what we want in the contract, and we'll spend $200 million on our own
systems?"

Verisign's purchases go towards capital equity, since they own the equipment,
and while you could argue that the Internet as a whole may benefit from the
investment, it's still merely Verisign spending its own money on its own
systems.

Or am I missing something?

This will be my only post today, so I grant my other 4 posts to Chuck, so
he can answer this one.

Christopher

- --
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 17:37:38 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The remaking of a monopoly  ?

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

  Yep, seems as though for the most part Brook got the gist of the
situation rather well.  Nice job here Brook!

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dot-com hocus pocus - The remaking of a monopoly
> By Brock N. Meeks, MSNBC
>
> THE INTERNET Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced last
> week it cut a deal with former monopoly domain name registrar, Network
> Solutions, Inc., that once again cements its monopoly status.
>
> The deal is a stunning refutation of a public policy promise the Department of
> Commerce extracted from NSI a few years ago. The original promise was that the
> company would spilt off the domain name registry from its registration business
> in order to spur competition in the domain name registration business.
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/540693.asp?cp1=1
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 18:01:37 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  I believe this is my 4th post today to the GA list...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It is my understanding that VeriSign would control the spending of the
> funds.  I am not aware of any companies that would commit to spending of
> $200M and let everyone in the world decide how it would be spent.

  Thank you Chuck for this reveling clarification.  It sort of puts this in
perspective.  So it seems that Verisign is paying itself, and making it look
like
they are gifting $200m to the internet community for DNS R&D.  Nice bit
of political bait and switch encompassed in a contractual arrangement, if I do
say so myself!  >;)

  It should also be quite clear as well the contrary to what you suggest
in this comment, no one that I know of is suggesting that the WHOLE
WORLD should decide how this $200m should be spent....  Again a nice
bit of bait and switch.  But I ain't biting!

>
>
> Also, since this will be my fifth post today, let me respond to a comment by
> Peter de Blanc earlier today.  He implied that VeriSign would make the
> investment regardless of whether Option A or Option B was chosen.  I think I
> can safely say that VeriSign would not commit to invest $200M in R&D and
> infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net and .org registries if there
> is considerable uncertainty about our future role with those registries.  We
> are willing to commit to that level of investment with the added certainty
> that Option B provides.  I also believe that this is the way any successful
> business would behave.

  So it is either option B or no $200m for R& D that you are paying yourself.
How nice!  So much for the theory that Versign/NSI is a benevolent monopoly,
and is truly interested in the stability of the Internet....

>
>
> Chuck (signing off until Thursday)
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent:   Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:18 PM
> To:     Gomes, Chuck
> Cc:     [email-masked]
> Subject:        RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)
>
> At 15:17 21/03/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
> >Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
> >Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."
>
> one thing that is unclear in my mind is who would control the allocation of
> the USD 200M.
> We tried this once before (the "domain name tax" that was struck down in
> the early days of paying for DNS names). I've got projects I could think of
> offhand that would eat around 20M, and I think they would benefit the
> Internet - but why should anyone believe my judgment?
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:28:42 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] After Harald's and Jeff's posts

Jeff and all,

This list has obviously been shocked by Haralds mail. The traffic has 
dramatically dropped. I may however venture an explanation.

As I was mentionned in this mail I received several direct mails expressing 
real concerns about net-democracy as this is stricto-sensu a limitation of 
the most basic democratic liberty and right. Most expressed the concern in 
one way or another that the "Big Brother" was already in action. [one just 
came in saying Staff and Vint now communicated by proxies : Harald and Jeff 
:-) ]

On 12:08 21/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
 > Per and all remaining assembly members,
 >  In my opinion only:
 >  Well of course you are right Per.  But you must understand that Harald
 > takes his orders form "On High" i.e. the ICANN BoD and staff.  This is
 > particularly important when it is to effect "Damage Control", which we
 > have with the Versign contract(s) issue.  So, it is now time to limit the
 > debate and discussion so as to "Quiet Things down" so that not too
 > many waves are made, so to speak....  Can't have negative discussion
 > or positions expressed towards anything that the ICANN BoD wants on
 > a ICANN ML, now can we...  Of course not!  That would be paramount
 > to Sacrilege now wouldn't it?  >;)

I have some difficulties to accept Harald might have been directed to send 
that mail (I suppose you do not command the IEFT Chair and it does not fit 
with the person I quickly met). More probably he self-sensured ourselves 
fearing or having been convinced the discussion went too far (as you say) 
on an ICANN owned support.

Anyway this is a way of censorship. Not the mail itself (that I accept - I 
did not know the rule - even if my three extra mails were to follow on 
Roberto's whis.ky joke) but the impact is.

I am suprised to see the very low press coverage of the issue which is key 
to the Internet future and which has probably the widest ever consensus 
among the "net keepers" in a very few days. I dislike this as it may show a 
disinterest in the whole internet unity issue. Many now feel that "iCANN is 
joining VeriSign" and that legal/commercial actions by large interests may 
now only address the net stability issue and that several private or public 
dismayed replacements for iCANN will appear, seaking for the protection of 
the international law (the UN through the ITU/T).

I do hope that Mike Roberts' slogan "We the iCANN" (a concept he apparently 
faught from A to Z ) will survive. Plan A is not insuring it much more than 
Plan B but it permits to work on it. IMHO the only way to resolve the whole 
issue is to revise in common the RFC.1591 so it becomes the Internet 
Community White Book (and the founding document of a revised ICANN sticking 
back to its initial charter).

In doing this we should use common sense simple, robust and stable ideas:

- - the ICANN is the association of the national NICs (main statutory 
members) and TLD Registries.

- - anyone operating a non conflicting TLD under minimum stability rules is 
entitled to Membership with an annual fee in direct proportion to its TLD 
management turn over (free DNs are OK by me). [a personnal view: I favor a 
non profit approach of the TLDs, the registrants being actually co-owner of 
the TLD either as share holder or as Member. The TLD subcontracting to 
VeriSign or to others].

- - the root is the directory of Members' DNS resources.

- - the SO are advisory competence centers for the BoD, Govs, Industry and 
Internet Community. They are formed of a GA and of special interest centers 
(constituencies, clubs, ML, Centers of Interests) freely created or 
gathered and managed towards consensus by concerned professionnals and 
organizations

- - netwide interests are represented at the BoD by 9 Directors elected by 
the SO with some constraints on their origins : business: no double 
representation of a the same corporation, cultures and markets: 
geographical diversity, areas of competence and responsibility: three 
Directors from NICs

- - stakeholders interests are represented at the BoD by 9 @large Directors: 
5 on a geographical basis, 4 on a specialisation basis (content, telcos, ..)

- - according to the priniciple of subsidiarity and not to conflict with 
anti-trust laws, the iCANN duties will be strictly limited to tasks that 
are individual Members cannot perform alone. In such a case iCANN will be 
paid at the price value of the proposed service (complementary budget 
coming from NICs and TLD Membership):

- - among these services:
   - root compilation and broadcast
   - TLD registration and conflict resolution arbitration solution
   - DNS related string conflict resolutions (DNs are by no means the only 
way to use the DNS!)
   - IP and Protocol management (IP is by far more important and complex 
than DNs)
   - qualification label of Registrars
   - secretariat for common projects and common document compilation. 
Hosting of common interest sites and ML
   - quarterly meeting organization
   - @large elections organization in cooperation with NICs
   - Survey of Internet Community needs and demands
   - multilingual reference lexical
   - international development plans
   - common interface with international organizations and Govs (GAC)
   - common control and coordination of a root service (SSRAC) and 
development (CRADA)
   - consulting services to the NICs and TLDs
   etc.. etc.. you name it as long as it pays itself.

- -  every development aiming at being used by a large number of Members will 
have to be under GNU license.

- -  as per the Digital Continuity Association's request: every document 
published by the iCANN will include an explanation on how its helps 
reducing the intenational digital divide.

IMHO, the work done at the WG-Review is a good example of what is possible 
to progressively see that approach adopted.

Jefsey

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 02:17:04 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] M$ 5 a poor deal?

Harald having given Check an alibi to stop responding to people VeriSign do 
not care about we will not have an answer to this one.

NSI signs .org for 10 years. Let assumes it makes $5 per year per DN. It 
means that over 100.000 10 years registrants the M$ 5 are actually an ... 
expense for .org.

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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:25:08 -0500
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] note on timing

	The Names Council has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday, March 28 to 
discuss the proposed Verisign agreement, and to agree on a statement 
regarding the agreement, to be forwarded to the Board, on behalf of the 
DNSO.  Philip Sheppard, as NC Chair, has asked the GA and each of the 
constituencies to report their views to the NC by noon ***this 
Sunday***.  He asks:  "Please keep reports short, listed in note form and 
focused on the desirability of the status quo (old agreement) and the new 
agreement. What are the pros and cons ? Which agreement do you 
prefer?"  Sheppard will use the following three days to generate a 
consolidated statement that the NC and GA Chair can approve on Wednesday.

	This doesn't give us much time -- to be precise, we've got about three 
days left.  Under the circumstances, I think we have two tasks:  First, we 
need a single document summarizing the points that appear to have general 
(although not universal) support on the list.  I think Roberto is working 
on such a document; David and anyone else who has text to offer should get 
it to him.  Second, once the document is distributed, folks need to give 
Roberto enough feedback so that he can make a decision by Sunday whether to 
pass it on to the NC.

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 01:40:24 -0000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NC telecon 28 March 2001, agenda **ATTENTION LOCAL TIME**

Please note also that Melbourne will be moving off daylight saving time
midnight 25 Mar.

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: [ga] NC telecon 28 March 2001, agenda **ATTENTION LOCAL TIME**

>
> **ATTENTION LOCAL TIME**
> Please note that Europe is changing local time on Sunday, 25 March,
> whereas the North America is changing local time on Sunday 1st April.
> On 28th March the difference between local time in New York and Paris
> will be of 7 hours instead of usual 6 hours.
> **
>
> [ To: [email-masked] ]
> [ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
>
>
> [ cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NCtelecon-agenda.html ]
>
>
> ICANN/DNSO
>
>
> DNSO Names Council Teleconference on 28 March 2001 - agenda
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
>
> 21 March 2001.
>
> Agenda NC 28 March 2001 (120 mins)
>
> Date, time, phones and webcast
>
> 1. The Names Council teleconference will be held on 28 March at the
>    following time:
>
> (5:00 LA, 8:00 New York, 15:00 Paris, 22:00 Japan/Korea, 23:00 Melbourne)
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     Local time between 26 March and 1 April 2001,
>     the most difficult week for local time
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     Reference (Coordinated Universal Time)     UTC         13:00
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     California, USA                            UTC-8+0DST   5:00
>     Missouri, USA                              UTC-6+0DST   7:00
>     Monterrey, Mexico                          UTC-6+0DST   7:00
>     Washington DC, USA                   (EST) UTC-5+0DST   8:00
>     Panama, Panama                             UTC-5+0DST   8:00
>     St.Thomas, Virgin Islands                  UTC-4+0DST   9:00
>     Santiago, Chile                            UTC-4+0DST   9:00 since 11
Mar
>     Buenos Aires, Argentina                    UTC-3+0DST  10:00
>     London, United Kingdom                     UTC+0+1DST  14:00
>     Brussels, Belgium                    (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
>     Barcelona, Spain                     (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
>     Frankfurt, Germany                   (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
>     Paris, France                        (CET) UTC+1+1DST  15:00
>     Seoul, Korea                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
>     Tokyo, Japan                               UTC+9+0DST  22:00
>     Melbourne, Australia                      UTC+10+0DST  23:00 since 25
Mar
>     Auckland, New Zealand                     UTC+12+0DST  01:00 next day
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March (with some exceptions)
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
>
> 2. The teleconference bridge will be provided by Theresa Swinehart
>
> 3. The NC will not be webcast due to budget constraints.
>
>    Dial in number: will be provided later
>
>    Passcode #: will be provided later
>
>    Conference leader: Ms Theresa Swinehart
>
>    10 ports "listen only" will be reserved for remote participants
>
>    The full participants are the 19 NC members as listed in
>    http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ncmembers.html,
>    DNSO Secretariat and ICANN Officers
>
>    The conference Scribe will be Maca Jamin
>
>
> Agenda and related documents
>
> Philip Sheppard will be chairing the NC teleconference.
>
> Scheduled time for meeting - 120 mins.
>
> Discussion of constituencies positions and agreement on an NC
> statement on the proposed variation to the ICANN/VeriSign agreement.
>
> Documents:
>   * http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm,
>     Information on Proposed VeriSign Agreement Revisions,
>     posted 20 March 2001.
>   * http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00008.html
>     Philip Shepard request for comments from the GA and Constituencies,
>     posted 13 March 2001, and calling the NC teleconference on 28 March.
>
> Note
>
> The subsequent normal teleconference will be as scheduled 10 April
> at 15.00 Paris time.
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------
>
>               Information from:© DNSO Names Council
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:58:09 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Alexander Svensson wrote:
> ...the threat of a pseudo divestiture should probably be
> looked at seriously.

Picking up on this from the "[ga] Re: Board descisions" thread...

ICANN posted four additional FAQs this evening focusing on what Verisign
must do to obtain the four-year extension under the original agreement and
what limitations, if any, might be placed on Verisign or the purchaser of
the registrar assets after any sale.

You'll want to review FAQs 4, 5, 6 and 7 from this:

  http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

I won't attempt to summarize the points made there, but many of the elements
described by James Seng in an earlier post about what Verisign would do
under Option A appear to be realistic possibilities:

  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01029.html

     -- 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: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 21:39:25 -0800
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Hello Bret,

Wednesday, March 21, 2001, 8:58:09 PM, Bret Fausett wrote:

> Alexander Svensson wrote:
>> ...the threat of a pseudo divestiture should probably be
>> looked at seriously.

> Picking up on this from the "[ga] Re: Board descisions" thread...

> ICANN posted four additional FAQs this evening focusing on what Verisign
> must do to obtain the four-year extension under the original agreement and
> what limitations, if any, might be placed on Verisign or the purchaser of
> the registrar assets after any sale.

> You'll want to review FAQs 4, 5, 6 and 7 from this:

>   http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

> I won't attempt to summarize the points made there, but many of the elements
> described by James Seng in an earlier post about what Verisign would do
> under Option A appear to be realistic possibilities:

>   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01029.html

Sounds like extortion to me.

Give us what we want, or we will do this........

In any event, I see nothing there that changes my mind that the new
agreement should not be entered into.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:52:28 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

Chuck,

>I think I
>can safely say that VeriSign would not commit to invest $200M in R&D and
>infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net and .org registries if there
>is considerable uncertainty about our future role with those registries.  
>We
>are willing to commit to that level of investment with the added certainty
>that Option B provides.  I also believe that this is the way any successful
>business would behave.

Absolutely true.
I expect the company that will take over the Registrar business if option A 
is retained to invest in infrastructure improvements.
Personally, I agree with Peter and you that the company doing the investment 
will have exclusive control on the priorities and will not let the whole 
world debate on what should be invested for. As a consequence, I tend to 
consider this point irrelevant for the choice between options, or at least a 
minor consideration thereof.

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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:46:41 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

  $200m is hardly a trivial consideration in any potential contract or
other agreement.  To Trivialize the $200m promise over a 10 year
span IF the "New Deal" agreement is consummated is paramount to
gross fiduciary incompatancy.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Chuck,
>
> >I think I
> >can safely say that VeriSign would not commit to invest $200M in R&D and
> >infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net and .org registries if there
> >is considerable uncertainty about our future role with those registries.
> >We
> >are willing to commit to that level of investment with the added certainty
> >that Option B provides.  I also believe that this is the way any successful
> >business would behave.
>
> Absolutely true.
> I expect the company that will take over the Registrar business if option A
> is retained to invest in infrastructure improvements.
> Personally, I agree with Peter and you that the company doing the investment
> will have exclusive control on the priorities and will not let the whole
> world debate on what should be invested for. As a consequence, I tend to
> consider this point irrelevant for the choice between options, or at least a
> minor consideration thereof.
>
> 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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 03:51:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Bret and all remaining assembly members,

Bret Fausett wrote:

> Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > ...the threat of a pseudo divestiture should probably be
> > looked at seriously.
>
> Picking up on this from the "[ga] Re: Board descisions" thread...
>
> ICANN posted four additional FAQs this evening focusing on what Verisign
> must do to obtain the four-year extension under the original agreement and
> what limitations, if any, might be placed on Verisign or the purchaser of
> the registrar assets after any sale.
>
> You'll want to review FAQs 4, 5, 6 and 7 from this:
>
>   http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

  I don't see that Option "A" in this regard is all that much different than
Option "B".  This meaning that Option "B" has no advantages of any
substantial nature to Option "A" in this regard.  Verisign can under
either contract option, can at any time re-enter the Registrar business.

>
>
> I won't attempt to summarize the points made there, but many of the elements
> described by James Seng in an earlier post about what Verisign would do
> under Option A appear to be realistic possibilities:
>
>   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc06/msg01029.html
>
>      -- 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 21:32:22 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN-site FAQ on the existing Verisign agreement

Perhaps you may have seen how ICANN is helpful in providing answers to
FAQ's re the status-quo agreement with NSI.
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm

It amazes me how many loopholes the staff have now identified in the
existing agreement.

Clearly someone may have indicated to ICANN that  when it comes again to a
court challenge, it may be better off with Plan B. 

I am not so sure. The spirit of the agreement to separate registry and
registrar business should be enforceable, even if the agreement is not
watertight.

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

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

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 12:37:22 +0100
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

- --=====================_7412653==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Due to lack of budget the public discussion of the NC concerning the 
VeriSign proposition will not be broadcasted.

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NCtelecon-agenda.html

May be VeriSign will propose to subsidize it: but from what Chuck said 
about GA : they are not interested to know what DNSO says.

As the rumor spreads around that iCANN could change the ".org" charter, a 
second wave says "if you register now for 10 years your .org as VeriSign 
proposes it, you have nothing to fear". Could VeriSign let us know how much 
advance yearly registrations they have sold for ".org". So we know how it 
compares with the M$ 5.

Jefsey.
   
- --=====================_7412653==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Due to lack of budget the public discussion of the NC concerning the
VeriSign proposition will not be broadcasted.<br>
<br>
<font color="#0000FF"><u><a href="http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NCtelecon-agenda.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010328.NCtelecon-agenda.html</a><br>
<br>
</u></font>May be VeriSign will propose to subsidize it: but from what
Chuck said about GA : they are not interested to know what DNSO says.
<br>
<br>
As the rumor spreads around that iCANN could change the &quot;.org&quot;
charter, a second wave says &quot;if you register now for 10 years your
.org as VeriSign proposes it, you have nothing to fear&quot;. Could
VeriSign let us know how much advance yearly registrations they have sold
for &quot;.org&quot;. So we know how it compares with the M$ 5.<br>
<br>
Jefsey.<br>
&nbsp; </html>

- --=====================_7412653==_.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #300
************************