Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #302
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Friday, March 23 2001            Volume 01 : Number 302

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

Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 19:23:26 +0100
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Kent,

Incidentally, since you are listing the various things that VeriSign may do 
under option A to keep the monopoly, may I notice that there is nothing 
under option B that prevents VeriSign to buy the company that will win the 
contract for .org, going back to square 1.
Maybe this should also be identified as a pitfall in the FAQ ;>)

Roberto

>From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:53:29 -0800
>
>On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:35:49AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >          Brets point (unsurprisingly) is worth careful attention.  The 
>FAQ
> > materials shed new light on the issue raised by James Seng in his post a
> > few days ago:  Materials circulated by Verisigns investment bankers seem
> > to take for granted that if Verisign does divest the registrar, it will
> > nonetheless continue as a *reseller* of domain names. It seems to me 
>that
> > this new operation would likely differ from Verisigns existing registrar
> > business in at least three ways.  First, Verisign would have to give up 
>the
> > Network Solutions name and trademarks to the acquirer, since the 
>existing
> > contract requires Verisign to divest[] all the assets of the registrar
> > business to the acquirer, and the Network Solutions name and trademarks 
>are
> > part of those assets.
>
>But of course, there is nothing whatsoever that prevents the new owner
>from licensing use of the NSI name back to VRSN.
>
> >  So the new Verisign reseller operation would need a
> > new name.
>
>No, it wouldn't.
>
> >  Second, the NSI Registrar employees, servers, intellectual
> > property, and so on would also be going to the acquirer - those, too, 
>are
> > part of the 'assets' that must be divested.
>
>But  there is no way to keep VRSN from re-hiring those employees, and
>the intellectual property can all be licensed.  Moreover, the FAQ makes
>clear that there are substantial questions about distinguishing what
>part of the business can be allocated to the registry and what part to
>the registrar.
>
> > So Verisign's reseller
> > business would have to be a new business, not just NSI Registrar under a
> > different name.
>
>Please define "new business".  There are no clauses in the current
>contract that really define this, and, as the FAQ makes quite clear,
>there is large room for interpretation on the part of ICANN, VRSN, and
>DOC.
>
>Bear in mind that once VRSN commits to going down this road, there is an
>associated enforcement cost that must be born by ICANN, in dealing with
>the unique situation between VRSN and any buyer.
>
> > Third, the Verisign reseller, having taken a registration
> > from a member of the public, couldn't simply enter the name in the SRS, 
>but
> > would have to buy that service from some accredited registrar.
>
>But of course, that accredited registrar could simply be a new
>registrar created by VRSN.  And that new registrar could simply
>implement a pass-through.  VRSN doesn't need to do this, of course.
>
> >          Though James's message can be read to suggest otherwise, I 
>think
> > it's *not* likely that any divestiture could require the acquiring
> > registrar to take registrations only from Verisign and nobody else.
>
>It doesn't need to.  The only thing that VRSN really needs to do is
>maintain its market share, and there are many many tools by which it
>can do that.
>
> >  That
> > would tie the companies together so closely as to raise the persuasive
> > argument that the divestiture was a sham, and would, I think, violate 
>the
> > contractual language forbidding any arrangement under which Verisign 
>would
> > be able, 'directly or indirectly, to direct . . . the operations or
> > policies' of the new registrar.  Nor does it make a lot of sense to me 
>that
> > Verisign would want to include such a restriction, which would reduce 
>its
> > sale price with no corresponding benefit.
>
>Keeping market share seems to me like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
> > What should we think about such a result?  It would eliminate any
> > existing incentive for Verisign Registry to bend the existing 
>equal-access
> > rules requiring it to treat all registrars equally (since any profits
> > flowing from that rule-breaking would no longer flow to Verisign
> > itself).
>
>No, that simply isn't true.  Assume a small registrar with a small
>retail side and a single enormous reseller.  Favors to that small
>registrar could easily flow through to that reseller.
>
> > I suspect that it would likely increase the number of
> > high-visibility players in the selling-domain-names-to-consumers
> > market.
>
>The FAQ notes that the retail end of the business is not particularly
>valuable.
>
> > That depends on who the acquirer is, natch, but my guess (and this
> > is only a guess) is that the acquirer is *not* likely to be one of the
> > larger existing registrars: those companies have spent too much money
> > building their infrastructure and trademarks to be willing to pay full
> > price to buy NSI's.  OTOH, this resolution won't satisfy those who want 
>to
> > see Verisign out of the registrar or reseller business entirely.
>
>There were multiple loopholes mentioned in the FAQ.  The main point is
>that there are many, many ways that VRSN can arrange to maintain its
>market share, and it certainly has significant interest in doing so.
>
>Bear in mind that we simply don't have the same incentive that VRSN does
>to think about this creatively.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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 12:42:05 -0600
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN-site FAQ on the existing Verisign agreement

At 9:32 pm +1200 3/22/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>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.

Which begs the question:

1. Who on the ICANN "staff" was involved in the drafting of the original
contract.

Which begs the further questions:

2. Are they still involved?

3. If so, why?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.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 10:50:58 -0800
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 07:23:26PM +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Kent,
> 
> Incidentally, since you are listing the various things that VeriSign may do 
> under option A to keep the monopoly, may I notice that there is nothing 
> under option B that prevents VeriSign to buy the company that will win the 
> contract for .org,

No, there is nothing explicit in Option B to prevent that.  It's not a
realistic concern, though -- there is nothing to prevent the contract
between ICANN and said registry operator from having arbitrarily strong
conditions separating it from Verisign.  Moreover, it is perhaps a
presumption to assume that the registry operator for .org would want to
sell.  Suppose that the registry operatory for .org were CORE -- how 
would Verisign buy CORE?

- -- 
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:38:25 +0100 (CET)
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] The Verisign FAQ (so-called): ORG??

Although I sometimes doubt whether I am part of "the ICANN
community" (thus on
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm), I feel I
have a right to say something again, as the registrant of a number of
'threatened' ORG domains.

Having read the so-called Verisign FAQ (URL already quoted), I cannot
be but amazed. It does not mention with even one word, all the
questions the remarks about the registration rules for a 'new' ORG
have raised. It just ignores the worries of ORG registrants...

This strengthenes my suspicion. So I call upon all
registrants/'owners' of ORG domain names to support a protest
statement against changing the status of ORG.

Please, have a look at:

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

[if your browser doesn't like this long domain, try
http://www.disgrace.org/, which gives the same page]

Please, send your ORG name(s) and let us show ICANN some bottom up
protest... The email to send to, is on the page.

Your email addresses will not be posted on the webpage, only domains.

Numbers speak...

Thank you for your time!

Marc Schneiders --- [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 15:43:49 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

This is a good point. Regardless of "status quo" or "new deal", VeriSign can
buy any company it wants to, or create one if necessary. Because of this
fact, it may make little difference in competition one way or the other.

If there are some more controls and benefits under "new deal", maybe we
should look that way.

peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Roberto
Gaetano
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:23 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Kent,

Incidentally, since you are listing the various things that VeriSign may do
under option A to keep the monopoly, may I notice that there is nothing
under option B that prevents VeriSign to buy the company that will win the
contract for .org, going back to square 1.
Maybe this should also be identified as a pitfall in the FAQ ;>)

Roberto

>From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:53:29 -0800
>
>On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:35:49AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >          Brets point (unsurprisingly) is worth careful attention.  The
>FAQ
> > materials shed new light on the issue raised by James Seng in his post a
> > few days ago:  Materials circulated by Verisigns investment bankers seem
> > to take for granted that if Verisign does divest the registrar, it will
> > nonetheless continue as a *reseller* of domain names. It seems to me
>that
> > this new operation would likely differ from Verisigns existing registrar
> > business in at least three ways.  First, Verisign would have to give up
>the
> > Network Solutions name and trademarks to the acquirer, since the
>existing
> > contract requires Verisign to divest[] all the assets of the registrar
> > business to the acquirer, and the Network Solutions name and trademarks
>are
> > part of those assets.
>
>But of course, there is nothing whatsoever that prevents the new owner
>from licensing use of the NSI name back to VRSN.
>
> >  So the new Verisign reseller operation would need a
> > new name.
>
>No, it wouldn't.
>
> >  Second, the NSI Registrar employees, servers, intellectual
> > property, and so on would also be going to the acquirer - those, too,
>are
> > part of the 'assets' that must be divested.
>
>But  there is no way to keep VRSN from re-hiring those employees, and
>the intellectual property can all be licensed.  Moreover, the FAQ makes
>clear that there are substantial questions about distinguishing what
>part of the business can be allocated to the registry and what part to
>the registrar.
>
> > So Verisign's reseller
> > business would have to be a new business, not just NSI Registrar under a
> > different name.
>
>Please define "new business".  There are no clauses in the current
>contract that really define this, and, as the FAQ makes quite clear,
>there is large room for interpretation on the part of ICANN, VRSN, and
>DOC.
>
>Bear in mind that once VRSN commits to going down this road, there is an
>associated enforcement cost that must be born by ICANN, in dealing with
>the unique situation between VRSN and any buyer.
>
> > Third, the Verisign reseller, having taken a registration
> > from a member of the public, couldn't simply enter the name in the SRS,
>but
> > would have to buy that service from some accredited registrar.
>
>But of course, that accredited registrar could simply be a new
>registrar created by VRSN.  And that new registrar could simply
>implement a pass-through.  VRSN doesn't need to do this, of course.
>
> >          Though James's message can be read to suggest otherwise, I
>think
> > it's *not* likely that any divestiture could require the acquiring
> > registrar to take registrations only from Verisign and nobody else.
>
>It doesn't need to.  The only thing that VRSN really needs to do is
>maintain its market share, and there are many many tools by which it
>can do that.
>
> >  That
> > would tie the companies together so closely as to raise the persuasive
> > argument that the divestiture was a sham, and would, I think, violate
>the
> > contractual language forbidding any arrangement under which Verisign
>would
> > be able, 'directly or indirectly, to direct . . . the operations or
> > policies' of the new registrar.  Nor does it make a lot of sense to me
>that
> > Verisign would want to include such a restriction, which would reduce
>its
> > sale price with no corresponding benefit.
>
>Keeping market share seems to me like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
> > What should we think about such a result?  It would eliminate any
> > existing incentive for Verisign Registry to bend the existing
>equal-access
> > rules requiring it to treat all registrars equally (since any profits
> > flowing from that rule-breaking would no longer flow to Verisign
> > itself).
>
>No, that simply isn't true.  Assume a small registrar with a small
>retail side and a single enormous reseller.  Favors to that small
>registrar could easily flow through to that reseller.
>
> > I suspect that it would likely increase the number of
> > high-visibility players in the selling-domain-names-to-consumers
> > market.
>
>The FAQ notes that the retail end of the business is not particularly
>valuable.
>
> > That depends on who the acquirer is, natch, but my guess (and this
> > is only a guess) is that the acquirer is *not* likely to be one of the
> > larger existing registrars: those companies have spent too much money
> > building their infrastructure and trademarks to be willing to pay full
> > price to buy NSI's.  OTOH, this resolution won't satisfy those who want
>to
> > see Verisign out of the registrar or reseller business entirely.
>
>There were multiple loopholes mentioned in the FAQ.  The main point is
>that there are many, many ways that VRSN can arrange to maintain its
>market share, and it certainly has significant interest in doing so.
>
>Bear in mind that we simply don't have the same incentive that VRSN does
>to think about this creatively.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 21:29:55 +0100 (MET)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Reminder - Call for Nominations for GA Chair

22 March 2001.

The Call for Nomination of candidates for election to the Chair 
of the General Assembly of the DNSO will end in less than 21 hours,
tomorrow, Friday, 23 March, at 18:00 CET (Paris time).
The acceptance period close on Friday 23 March 2001 at 21:00 CET
(For local time in other places see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/)

The current status of nominations is:
   -------------------------------------------------------------
    Nominees who accepted their nomination for the Chair of the
    General Assembly (GA) (date of reception at the dnso.org,
    CET, Paris)

       * 2001/03/17 Danny Younger, nominated for the first time
         by Joop Teernstra

              2001/03/18 Danny Younger acceptes his nomination

       * 2001/03/19 Eric Hugh Dierker, nominated for the first
         time by Joanna Lane

              2001/03/21 Eric Hugh Dierker acceptes his nomination

       * 2001/03/22 Jonathan Weinberg, nominated for the first
         time by Milton Mueller
     
              2001/03/22 Jonathan Weinberg acceptes his nomination
 
    No answer received yet:
 
       * 2001/03/17 Patrick Corliss, nominated for the first time
         by Joop Teernstra
       * 2001/03/22 Greg Burton, nominated for the first time by
         Harald Alvestrand
    -------------------------------------------------------------

Nominations must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked]. 
Please use a Template for nomination: 

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   2a. Full name of the nominator:
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator:
   2c. Type of GA membership:
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member)

Acceptances must be sent by e-mail to [email-masked]. 
Please use a Template for acceptance: 

   1a. Full name of the nominee:
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee:
   1c. Background information about the nominee:
   1d. Statement of the nominee's objectives
       in the role as Chair of the GA:
       (including his or her views of the role
       of the GA and its relationship with the
       Names Council and Constituencies of the DNSO)

Each nominee will be requested for acceptance statement by the
Secretariat.

Archives of nominations and acceptances received: 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-nominations/Arc01

Please consult
       http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
for more information on the DNSO GA Chair election.
The Watchdog Committee has been formed for the 2001 GA Chair 
elections, its members are listed in the above document.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
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 15:37:07 -0500
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Please note the following from the new .org agreement:

5.1 Expiration of this Agreement.

5.1.1 The Expiration Date shall be December 31, 2002.

5.1.2 Registry Operator acknowledges and agrees that upon the earlier of (i)
the Expiration Date or (ii) termination of this Agreement by ICANN pursuant
to Subsection 5.4, it will cease to be the operator of the Registry TLD and
neither it nor any affiliated entity will be eligible to seek to continue to
operate the Registry TLD.

Chuck

(My apologies. I think I exceeded five messages today.)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 1:23 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

Kent,

Incidentally, since you are listing the various things that VeriSign may do 
under option A to keep the monopoly, may I notice that there is nothing 
under option B that prevents VeriSign to buy the company that will win the 
contract for .org, going back to square 1.
Maybe this should also be identified as a pitfall in the FAQ ;>)

Roberto

>From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'
>Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 08:53:29 -0800
>
>On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:35:49AM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> >          Brets point (unsurprisingly) is worth careful attention.  The 
>FAQ
> > materials shed new light on the issue raised by James Seng in his post a
> > few days ago:  Materials circulated by Verisigns investment bankers seem
> > to take for granted that if Verisign does divest the registrar, it will
> > nonetheless continue as a *reseller* of domain names. It seems to me 
>that
> > this new operation would likely differ from Verisigns existing registrar
> > business in at least three ways.  First, Verisign would have to give up 
>the
> > Network Solutions name and trademarks to the acquirer, since the 
>existing
> > contract requires Verisign to divest[] all the assets of the registrar
> > business to the acquirer, and the Network Solutions name and trademarks 
>are
> > part of those assets.
>
>But of course, there is nothing whatsoever that prevents the new owner
>from licensing use of the NSI name back to VRSN.
>
> >  So the new Verisign reseller operation would need a
> > new name.
>
>No, it wouldn't.
>
> >  Second, the NSI Registrar employees, servers, intellectual
> > property, and so on would also be going to the acquirer - those, too, 
>are
> > part of the 'assets' that must be divested.
>
>But  there is no way to keep VRSN from re-hiring those employees, and
>the intellectual property can all be licensed.  Moreover, the FAQ makes
>clear that there are substantial questions about distinguishing what
>part of the business can be allocated to the registry and what part to
>the registrar.
>
> > So Verisign's reseller
> > business would have to be a new business, not just NSI Registrar under a
> > different name.
>
>Please define "new business".  There are no clauses in the current
>contract that really define this, and, as the FAQ makes quite clear,
>there is large room for interpretation on the part of ICANN, VRSN, and
>DOC.
>
>Bear in mind that once VRSN commits to going down this road, there is an
>associated enforcement cost that must be born by ICANN, in dealing with
>the unique situation between VRSN and any buyer.
>
> > Third, the Verisign reseller, having taken a registration
> > from a member of the public, couldn't simply enter the name in the SRS, 
>but
> > would have to buy that service from some accredited registrar.
>
>But of course, that accredited registrar could simply be a new
>registrar created by VRSN.  And that new registrar could simply
>implement a pass-through.  VRSN doesn't need to do this, of course.
>
> >          Though James's message can be read to suggest otherwise, I 
>think
> > it's *not* likely that any divestiture could require the acquiring
> > registrar to take registrations only from Verisign and nobody else.
>
>It doesn't need to.  The only thing that VRSN really needs to do is
>maintain its market share, and there are many many tools by which it
>can do that.
>
> >  That
> > would tie the companies together so closely as to raise the persuasive
> > argument that the divestiture was a sham, and would, I think, violate 
>the
> > contractual language forbidding any arrangement under which Verisign 
>would
> > be able, 'directly or indirectly, to direct . . . the operations or
> > policies' of the new registrar.  Nor does it make a lot of sense to me 
>that
> > Verisign would want to include such a restriction, which would reduce 
>its
> > sale price with no corresponding benefit.
>
>Keeping market share seems to me like a pretty substantial benefit.
>
> > What should we think about such a result?  It would eliminate any
> > existing incentive for Verisign Registry to bend the existing 
>equal-access
> > rules requiring it to treat all registrars equally (since any profits
> > flowing from that rule-breaking would no longer flow to Verisign
> > itself).
>
>No, that simply isn't true.  Assume a small registrar with a small
>retail side and a single enormous reseller.  Favors to that small
>registrar could easily flow through to that reseller.
>
> > I suspect that it would likely increase the number of
> > high-visibility players in the selling-domain-names-to-consumers
> > market.
>
>The FAQ notes that the retail end of the business is not particularly
>valuable.
>
> > That depends on who the acquirer is, natch, but my guess (and this
> > is only a guess) is that the acquirer is *not* likely to be one of the
> > larger existing registrars: those companies have spent too much money
> > building their infrastructure and trademarks to be willing to pay full
> > price to buy NSI's.  OTOH, this resolution won't satisfy those who want 
>to
> > see Verisign out of the registrar or reseller business entirely.
>
>There were multiple loopholes mentioned in the FAQ.  The main point is
>that there are many, many ways that VRSN can arrange to maintain its
>market share, and it certainly has significant interest in doing so.
>
>Bear in mind that we simply don't have the same incentive that VRSN does
>to think about this creatively.
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:08:17 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination for Chair--Jonathan Weinberg

If no one else has done so, already, I nominate Jonathan Weinberg to
serve as GA Chair.

He has the knowledge, training, experience and personality to work
with everyone on this list in a fair, constructive and friendly
manner and to accurately and well represent our consensus and
dissenting views to the other ICANN organs, officials and staff.  I
also believe he is the best qualified member of this body  to finish
the task begun by the current administration of making  this
assembly fully functional and relevant.

- --
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 22:20:17 +0100 (MET)
From: Mikael Pawlo <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination of Milton Mueller

To: GA-nominations
with CC to the GA

   1a. Full name of the nominee: Dr Milton Mueller
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
   2a. Full name of the nominator: Mikael Pawlo
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: GA
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member)

Why I nominate Mr Mueller:                      
Dr Milton Mueller is Associate Professor and directs the Graduate Program
in Telecommunications and Network Management at the Syracuse University
School of Information Studies, Syracuse. Dr Mueller is a well-known
scholar with high integrity and an extensive production of academic work
on Internet regulation. Dr Mueller maintains a critical approach, which is
of essence when trying to re-establish the GA. Further, I think Dr 
Mueller, through his academic leadership, would provide the GA with new
standards when it comes to discussions on policy making on the GA
mailinglists.

For more information on Dr Mueller, please visit Dr Muellers website:
http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

Dr Mueller has not accepted this nomination and to not know about this
nomination before this submission.

Best regards,

Mikael Pawlo
GA subscriber
Stockholm, Sweden

_________________________________________________________________________

  ICQ:35638414                                mailto:[email-masked] 
  +46-70 421 58 25                            http://www.pawlo.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 16:44:44 -0600
From: Eric Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Nomination of Jonathan Weinberg as GA Chair

 To: GA-nominations
with CC to the GA and Mr. Weinberg

   1a. Full name of the nominee: Jonathan Weinberg
   1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
   2a. Full name of the nominator: Eric Weisberg
   2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
   2c. Type of GA membership: GA
       (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
        GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
        or DNSO Constituency member)

I nominate Mr. Weinberg because:
he has the knowledge, training, experience and personality to work
with everyone on this list in a fair, constructive and friendly
manner and to accurately and well represent our consensus and
dissenting views to the other ICANN organs, officials and staff.  I
also believe he is the best qualified member of this body  to finish
the task begun by the current administration of making  this
assembly fully functional and relevant.

- --
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 23:04:43 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination of Jonathan Weinberg as GA Chair

>  To: GA-nominations
> with CC to the GA and Mr. Weinberg
> 
>    1a. Full name of the nominee: Jonathan Weinberg
>    1b. E-mail address of the nominee: [email-masked]
>    2a. Full name of the nominator: Eric Weisberg
>    2b. E-mail address of the nominator: [email-masked]
>    2c. Type of GA membership: GA
>        (GA-ga subscriber, GA-announce subscriber,
>         GA-voting registry, Working Group subscriber,
>         or DNSO Constituency member)

I second and endorse this nomination for the reasons stated by the mover.

David Farrar
[email-masked]
GA member

DPF

- --
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 17:16:51 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Report from the discussion

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I am preparing a summary of the discussion, as I promised to Philip, the NC
> Chair.
>
> I will say that, after thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus
> in favour to option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.
> I will obviously quote the figures from the poll (the logical equivalent of
> the "show of hands" at a physical meeting), as already done in a previous
> post.

  I would say that this is an accurate assessment.  It however is unfortunate
that
a 3rd option (Option C?) could not be considered.

>
>
> The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:
> - "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in option
> A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among TLDs, and
> a better safeguard against a monopolistic position;
> - the switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done
> without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide
> recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines,
> absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such
> change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some
> attachments, are still unknown as today. Also, this change in policy is
> considered irreversible
> - the financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not
> balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment
> will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that
> is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community.

  This is a major drawback of the "New Deal" contract or Option B.
However had Verisign and the ICANn BoD been willing, some changes
to this part of Option B could have been considered, and if approved
by the DNSO GA, the Constituencies, and the @large, Option B
(With amendments/modifications) might have been preferred to Option A.

>
> The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at
> this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing
> operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as
> well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN
> - the other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of
> .org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice
> of uncontrolled sale of names in the TLD originally intended for chartered
> use have irreversibely polluted the namespace. Moreover, a future "cleanup"
> action to restore the original charter is specifically opposed by the GA,
> because it is considered contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide
> owners of .org names

  I think terms such as "Cleanup" and "Polluted" as it applies the the
.ORG name space are both unnecessary and inconsistent with reality.

>
>
> I would also incidentally note that a change in the charter of .org could be
> very possible under the current contract, if VeriSign reputes this a *good
> thing*. Probably neither ICANN nor the Internet community would oppose
> enforcement of tighter controls on future registrations in .org even if the
> registry stays in VeriSign hands.

  This seems to contradict your above comment/statement Roberto.
Can you explain that please?  And as such, is not what has
been vetted and discussed with respect to the ORG name space
for registrations now, OR in the future irrespective of whether .ORG
remains in Versisgns hands or not.

> Of course, this should be decided by ICANN
> and known to potential investors before the .org registrar part is put on
> sale. I bet though that this will not be done, as the economical value of
> .org, and its sale price, will suffer. ;>)
>
> This is just the report I owe as Chair, and does not preclude in any way
> other actions, like a vote (or a straw poll) on David's comprehensive
> motion, or the presentation of a "minority position" in the form, for
> instance, of Chuck's 10-points document.

  Unfortunately your report, as stated here anyway, is a bit inaccurate
as I have indicated above.  This is unfortunate, and disrespectful to
the internet community and the stakeholders, most especially those
that are .ORG and .NET registrants.  Please consider revising
the areas I have indicated above so as to be more accurate.

>
>
> Comments welcome.
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #302
************************