Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #334
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 334

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:43:48 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dear Board Members,

    Any attempt to approve or agree to the new agreement with Verisign is hereby
objected to in full.
    At this time we do not object on the substantive issues as we have not had time
to review and respond appropriately.
    We do object on the procedural issues of time and manner.  Any agreement
entered into in this manner does not have the support of the General Assembly and
should be viewed with distrust.

    Members of the General Assembly

Perhaps this is a good start?
Sincerely,

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> this is the critical point.   See also my latest comments at
> http://www.icannwatch.org
>
> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> >
> > Many of us did not bother suggesting improvements because it was said in no
> > uncertain terms none at all would be considered.  If stakeholders had known
> > the "non negotiable" agreements were negotiable then quite a different set of
> > feedback may have been provided.
> >
> > There is now no opportunity for the Names Council or any constituency to give
> > meaningful input to the Board as to whether this latest set of changes
> > partially or wholely meets their concerns.
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 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

- --
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, 02 Apr 2001 00:52:44 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Ok so we modify this a little - Dear Senators, Congressmen, DOC and the Public at
Large, and to the Press.

Dear Board Members,

    Any attempt to approve or agree to the new agreement with Verisign is hereby
objected to in full.
    At this time we do not object on the substantive issues as we have not had
time
to review and respond appropriately.
    We do object on the procedural issues of time and manner.  Any agreement
entered into in this manner does not have the support of the General Assembly and
should be viewed with distrust.

    Members of the General Assembly

Perhaps this is a good start?
Sincerely,

We all want ICANN to work or we would not be here, so our letter must combine our
righteous indignation with the truth that by all of your hard work, this is
working.
Every time I turn around I am faced with this groups abilities "If you can meet
with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same" Kipling

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Marilyn
>
> > I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to the NC
> > requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> > recommendation. I don't know yet.
> >
> > But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders, or
> > are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
> >
> > I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.
>
> I have read the three letters and it is very clear to me from the construction
> of the first letter that ICANN staff have renegotiated the deal in a way that
> was said to be impossible.  ICANN has also fudged the issue to suggest that
> these are minor, procedural changes.
>
> If the changes are minor and of no substance then they should not affect the
> decision.  However, these changes are clearly stated as having been made with
> the intention of making Option B more attractive.
>
> So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with no
> time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
> organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.
>
> Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:28 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> >
> >
> > This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign.  Is there
> > any way we can motion, second and present to the board?
> >
> > > Most people here should have seen the announcement that despite
> > > explicit statements that no changes were possible to the Verisign
> > > agreements ("it was A or B - there is no C") ICANN management and
> > > Verisign have negiotated some changes which they have just announced.
> > > The Board now has a full 24 hours to analyse these new agreements and
> > > vote on them with no input from the DNSO.
> > >
> > > I beleive Verisign should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to the 18
> > > May deadline to allow consideration of these new changes.  Yes
> > > Verisign said they would not agree to an extension previously but they
> > > also said that no further changes would be considered.
> > >
> > > I am extremely nervous about the possibility of ICANN Board having to
> > > vote on such huge and critical issues with less than 24 hours to
> > > analyse the changes.
> > >
> > > DPF
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [email-masked]
> > > To: "ICANN Announcement List" <[email-masked]>
> > > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:38:02 -0700
> > > Subject: [icann-announce] Proposed Revisions to ICANN-VeriSign
> > > Agreements
> > >
> > > On 1 March 2001, ICANN posted a proposal to revise the agreements
> > > between ICANN and VeriSign.  The announcement appears at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
> > > >. ICANN has posted a web page, with links to relevant source
> > > documents and a series of FAQs about the proposal at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm>.
> > >
> > > Among the items just posted is correspondence from yesterday and today
> > > between Stuart Lynn (ICANN's CEO) and Stratton Sclavos (VeriSign's
> > > CEO) regarding additional text changes to the proposed agreements and
> > > related undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign.  The URLs for this
> > > correspondence are:
> > >
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-31mar01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > >
> > >                                   ###
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
> >
>
> --
> 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, 02 Apr 2001 17:13:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN not a Governing Body

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:12:02 -0700, you wrote:

>I grow stupid in that I cannot help people understand the area that I truly do
>understand.
>
>Whether we like it or not, the U.S. Government owns the Internet.  I ask all who
>disagree to contact our lawyers, Touton and Sims and ask their opinion and from
>what my lawyer told me they have about 48 hours to get back to you, otherwise
>they are neglectful. Remember we are the clients not the Board.

The USG does not own the Internet.  No-one does.  It is a semi self
regulated anarchy.  

The USG asserts policy control over Root Server A and as this root
server is located within the US this is a fair claim.  Jon Postel if
alive might have been able to dispute this but no-one can.

However there is nothing at all which forces ISPs etc to use Root
Server A.  While it currently is by far the best option to follow it
is not impossible that if the USG made totally repugnant decisions
(deleting a ccTLD due to a foreign policy clash with a country) then
the majority of ISPs could well decide to go elsewhere in protest.

So the USG does not own the Internet.  It does not even own the DNS.
It merely controls Root Server A.  

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 2 Apr 2001 01:20:28 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

I've read the documents by now, in detail. 

I've paid close attention to the different issues raised by the different
constituencies, and while I can't being to speak for anyone else, I see
considerable merit to the stakeholder community in the WHOIS commitments.
Several constituencies (ISP, BC, and ISP all discussed these issues and
raised a concern about WHOIS).  Some of the questions/issue re the
discounted pricing which was raised by the Registrar constituency was also
addressed in the clarification letter.   There is also an acknowledgement of
the concern of registry/registrar cross-subsidization (wrong term, I know...
sorry, it's late here...)  I think that was at least acknowledged...And, I
take it seriously, and it appears that the board does as well.  Dealing with
that is a "future" issue, since it depends on behavior going forward....

Getting the ability to penalize Verisign/NSI for abuses was one of the
benefits of Option B, as I recall. Once abuses are documented and presented
to the ICANN staff.  I think, though, that the board and staff are likely to
be receptive to such reports, given the reference for that need from several
constituencies.  

Stratton raises a good point to note that what is agreed to by Verisign/NSI
must be required of other registries as well. I think that the staff and
board should make sure that this happens, with the caveat that the dominant
player often gets "different" treatment, UNTIL they are no longer dominant.
"Different" means structural safeguards and perhaps a bit of extra
reporting... 

I'm disappointed to hear from some that they are angry about the
modifications being made to Option B.  These seem to me to be responsive to
the comments presented by the NC and the constituencies. I never thought
that the Constituencies, or the NC should micro-manage the contract
negotiations, but should instead offer policy advice, which they did, in my
view. 

I wish the board well tomorrow a.m. in its decisions. It's a tough situation
to figure out what enables competition, ensures stabilization of ICANN, and
gets the rest of the work it faces moving: like the new gTLDs, multi-lingual
issues, any role it has in ENUM, etc.  

I can see merits and defects in both options... but these changes offer some
benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.

Just one person's view....

whew! time for me to sign off! I just realized how late it is.

Regards, Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:53 AM
To: Patrick Corliss
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; [GA]
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Ok so we modify this a little - Dear Senators, Congressmen, DOC and the
Public at
Large, and to the Press.

Dear Board Members,

    Any attempt to approve or agree to the new agreement with Verisign is
hereby
objected to in full.
    At this time we do not object on the substantive issues as we have not
had
time
to review and respond appropriately.
    We do object on the procedural issues of time and manner.  Any agreement
entered into in this manner does not have the support of the General
Assembly and
should be viewed with distrust.

    Members of the General Assembly

Perhaps this is a good start?
Sincerely,

We all want ICANN to work or we would not be here, so our letter must
combine our
righteous indignation with the truth that by all of your hard work, this is
working.
Every time I turn around I am faced with this groups abilities "If you can
meet
with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the same"
Kipling

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Marilyn
>
> > I'm just printing out to read the letters. They may be in response to
the NC
> > requested changes in what I am calling "section two" of the NC
> > recommendation. I don't know yet.
> >
> > But, if they are in response to changes suggested to the stakeholders,
or
> > are clarifications to Option B, couldn't that also be good news?
> >
> > I need to read the letters, and am going off to do that now.
>
> I have read the three letters and it is very clear to me from the
construction
> of the first letter that ICANN staff have renegotiated the deal in a way
that
> was said to be impossible.  ICANN has also fudged the issue to suggest
that
> these are minor, procedural changes.
>
> If the changes are minor and of no substance then they should not affect
the
> decision.  However, these changes are clearly stated as having been made
with
> the intention of making Option B more attractive.
>
> So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with
no
> time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
> organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.
>
> Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> > Marilyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 10:28 PM
> > To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> >
> >
> > This is a typical move for the ICANN board and Verisign.  Is there
> > any way we can motion, second and present to the board?
> >
> > > Most people here should have seen the announcement that despite
> > > explicit statements that no changes were possible to the Verisign
> > > agreements ("it was A or B - there is no C") ICANN management and
> > > Verisign have negiotated some changes which they have just announced.
> > > The Board now has a full 24 hours to analyse these new agreements and
> > > vote on them with no input from the DNSO.
> > >
> > > I beleive Verisign should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to the 18
> > > May deadline to allow consideration of these new changes.  Yes
> > > Verisign said they would not agree to an extension previously but they
> > > also said that no further changes would be considered.
> > >
> > > I am extremely nervous about the possibility of ICANN Board having to
> > > vote on such huge and critical issues with less than 24 hours to
> > > analyse the changes.
> > >
> > > DPF
> > >
> > >
> > > From: [email-masked]
> > > To: "ICANN Announcement List" <[email-masked]>
> > > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 16:38:02 -0700
> > > Subject: [icann-announce] Proposed Revisions to ICANN-VeriSign
> > > Agreements
> > >
> > > On 1 March 2001, ICANN posted a proposal to revise the agreements
> > > between ICANN and VeriSign.  The announcement appears at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
> > > >. ICANN has posted a web page, with links to relevant source
> > > documents and a series of FAQs about the proposal at
> > > <http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm>.
> > >
> > > Among the items just posted is correspondence from yesterday and today
> > > between Stuart Lynn (ICANN's CEO) and Stratton Sclavos (VeriSign's
> > > CEO) regarding additional text changes to the proposed agreements and
> > > related undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign.  The URLs for this
> > > correspondence are:
> > >
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-31mar01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/sclavos-letter-to-lynn-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > > <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-sclavos-01apr01.ht
> > > m>
> > >
> > >                                   ###
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
> >
>
> --
> 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, 02 Apr 2001 17:23:22 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>to all-
>
>at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in business,
>"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
>proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
>"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
>
>It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
>support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of all the
>comments supporting "status quo" or option A.

Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.

>Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow for
>any DNSO input before the board's vote.
>
>I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any decision.

Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
for a 30 day extension?  

The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
to consider and analyse them.

If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
(status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
we are getting.

If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
confidence a win-win solution can be found.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 02 Apr 2001 17:50:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 01:20:28 -0400 , you wrote:

>I'm disappointed to hear from some that they are angry about the
>modifications being made to Option B.  These seem to me to be responsive to
>the comments presented by the NC and the constituencies. I never thought
>that the Constituencies, or the NC should micro-manage the contract
>negotiations, but should instead offer policy advice, which they did, in my
>view. 

I'm not sure anyone here has said they are angry.   I am disappointed
not that modifications were made but that they were made after
explicit assurances were given that there would be no changes.  This
is a bit like changing the rules in the 9th innings.

The issue is not whether the changes enhance Option B.  It is whether
it is good process to have the Board making decisions on new
agreements with no chance to consult on them and less than 24 hours to
consider them.

Some of us here are quite passionate in wanting ICANN to succeed.  I
certainly do.  However one needs to have significant buy-in to major
decisions and I worry that any decision rushed through will merely
diminish ICANN's standing.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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, 2 Apr 2001 15:51:21 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Monday, April 02, 2001 2:05 PM (AEST), I wrote

> So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with no
> time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
> organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.
>
> Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.

I think ICANN has, to some extent, been captured by the commercial forces.
After all we are talking hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars here.

Neulevel, who has the new tld .biz is spending up on advertising and promotion
even though they know that it has not been approved by the DoC.  That money
could all be wasted.  They do it anyway because they must act as if it's a
foregone conclusion.

It's a form of gamesmanship.  If I'm pointing a gun at a bank teller, I don't
WANT to shoot him or her.  But I have to make them BELIEVE that I will do it if
necessary.

In the same way, Verisign couldn't let anybody THINK that the contract was
negotiable otherwise everybody would have put in suggestions and the whole
process would have to be conducted in public i.e. with full ICANN community
involvement.

No business would want that as it would not be in their best commercial
interests.  The best approach is to bluff everybody into thinking that NO
changes are possible,  That there was no Oprtion C.  I saw them in Melbourne and
they were not very convincing especially when asked about minor changes to the
wording.

Because of this uncertainty, I flagged it as a real possibility two weeks ago:

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:21 PM (ADST), I wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

> Actually, I'm not at all convinced that there is no possibility of a Plan C
> despite Verisign's denials.  I can think of three [sic] possibilities:
>
> (1)    Minor changes.  From the viewpoint of market sensitivity, minor changes
> would not impact the value of the share price.  Exactly what are "minor
changes"
> need to be determined but Verisign would surely agree if the community
insisted.
>
> (2)    Changes in Verisign's Favour.  Should the community might make a
proposal
> that Verisgn considers advances their commercial interests, they would push
for
> its adoption despite the tight time-frame.  Lawyers would work all night if
> needed.
>
> (3)    Subsequent Revision. Whilst difficult, any contract can be renegotiated
> during its currency.   Should Plan A be adopted (by default or otherwise) it
is
> certainly possible that the relevant contract could be revised during its
> currency (eg sometime in the next few years) by mutual agreement.
>
> (4)    Shoe on the Other Foot.  Rather than Verisign saying there are two
plans,
> take it or leave it.  ICANN could reverse the situation saying we will adopt
> Plan A now and include an option for Plan B sometime in the next 12 months.
If
> you want to switch to Plan B then you must gain the consensus of the DNSO.

The problem is not, and never has been Verisign.  They are a commercial
organisation and think they are acting in a rational way.  The truth is that the
most rational way to act, in this new environment is with open, transparent
public debate.  Sooner or later they will see that and improve their approach.
Chuch Gomes is doing that very well already.

No, the problem is ICANN for allowing themselves to be shanghaied by narrow,
commercial interests.  In other word's Verisign has outbluffed the ICANN
maestros.

Regardless of the merits, it will be a public disgrace if the ICANN Board votes
in favour of proceeding with Option B.   If they do it will be overturned by
Congress, DoC or public opinion.  The General Assembly should immediately
register its protest.

Best 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

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

Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:24:22 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 10:23 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
>public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
>to consider and analyse them.

Given that the changes are directly in line with the public requests, what 
is the purpose of additional delay?

Remember that our job is not to negotiate the contract but to offer comments.

>If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
>(status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
>we are getting.

That's just a bit counter-productive, don't you think?

Alternative regularizes the contract, compared with other registries, 
removes fee restrictions, now will add sanctions for misbehaviors, and so on.

What are the contractual benefits of the existing contract that could 
possibly make it preferable to the revised Alternative B?

d/

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:30:29 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dear Names Council,

    We ask that you endorse and pass this letter along to Verisign and the Board
of Directors of ICANN.  We are not opposing the substance of the amendments and
or modifications to the agreements as we received them today, because we have not
had time to evaluate them.
    What we ask is that you grant a 30 day extension of the end of  negotiation
date so that all of us can review and give input to the agreement.
    It is our hope that we be viewed as the advisory behind ICANN, that through
our public input we can help all parties understand and accomodate public stake
holder opinion. We also believe that through this process we can help gather
support for the relationship between ICANN and Verisign.
    Thank you for any consideration you can give this important request at this
time.

The GA?

I just see time is critical here so I offer this as a starting point for a letter
to our council.

My previous letters would go elsewhere in case there is confusion.

Sincerely,

DPF wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>
> >to all-
> >
> >at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in business,
> >"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
> >proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
> >"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
> >
> >It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
> >support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of all the
> >comments supporting "status quo" or option A.
>
> Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
> argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
> stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
> undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
> certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.
>
> >Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow for
> >any DNSO input before the board's vote.
> >
> >I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any decision.
>
> Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
> resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
> for a 30 day extension?
>
> The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
> public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
> to consider and analyse them.
>
> If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
> (status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
> we are getting.
>
> If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
> confidence a win-win solution can be found.
>
> DPF
> --
> [email-masked]
> ICQ 29964527
> --
> 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, 02 Apr 2001 18:34:29 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:24:22 -0700, you wrote:

>At 10:23 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>>The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
>>public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
>>to consider and analyse them.
>
>Given that the changes are directly in line with the public requests, what 
>is the purpose of additional delay?

That is your opinion.  That may also be the opinion of ICANN
management but it is only an opinion.  One needs time to consider how
well these changes do indeed meet the requests of various groups.
Those who actually made the requests should have the opportunity to
say whether they now believe B/C is better than A.  

>Remember that our job is not to negotiate the contract but to offer comments.

Of course and we should be given the opportunity to comment on the new
proposals.  Do you really think less than 24 hours is adequate for
what are not insignificant changes?

>>If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
>>(status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
>>we are getting.
>
>That's just a bit counter-productive, don't you think?
>
>Alternative regularizes the contract, compared with other registries, 
>removes fee restrictions, now will add sanctions for misbehaviors, and so on.
>
>What are the contractual benefits of the existing contract that could 
>possibly make it preferable to the revised Alternative B?

I do not believe in giving instant analysis.  I want to be able to
look at the totality of the Revised B, ask questions about it, solicit
more info and then be able to give an opinion.

My initial feel is that B is improved by these changes but
nevertheless it would be ir-responsible to insist on changes being
voted on within 24 hours.  Verisign should not ask ICANN Board to
force itself to do so.  If Verisign agreed to last minute changes then
as a corollary it should also agree IMO to a time extension so that
they can be considered fairly.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:36:29 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 10:50 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>I'm not sure anyone here has said they are angry.   I am disappointed
>not that modifications were made but that they were made after
>explicit assurances were given that there would be no changes.  This
>is a bit like changing the rules in the 9th innings.

No, it is a bit like a large, intractable company deciding that bad public 
press is worth responding to.

We should take some pleasure in Versign's concessions, rather take part in 
the constant complaint-fest.

>The issue is not whether the changes enhance Option B.  It is whether
>it is good process to have the Board making decisions on new
>agreements with no chance to consult on them and less than 24 hours to
>consider them.

Your statement is directly in line with the many other participants who are 
more concerned about the precise details of process than they are about 
making real progress, never mind doing it is a timely fashion.

Such a casual attitude towards the content of proposals suggests a lack of 
real concern about the content of ICANN's work and, by implication, a 
disregard for the real work of administering names and addresses on the net.

Let's stop treating this as an academic exercise in abstract governance and 
treat it more like the pragmatic task of operations administration that it is.

d/

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 18:40:06 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

We only have hours not even days to act.  The GA can not realistically
come to a coherent position in a few hours.  

The NC with a smaller membership could quickly ask for a delay
(especially as this is their existing policy anyway).  In fact on the
basis of their existing policy I believe it would be appropriate for
the NC Chair to personally urgently communicate to the Board that the
DNSO would like time to evaluate the latest set of proposals.

I would suggest that GA members individually e-mail the NC Chair
and/or Board members giving their views on the latest development.

DPF

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:30:29 -0700, you wrote:

>Dear Names Council,
>
>    We ask that you endorse and pass this letter along to Verisign and the Board
>of Directors of ICANN.  We are not opposing the substance of the amendments and
>or modifications to the agreements as we received them today, because we have not
>had time to evaluate them.
>    What we ask is that you grant a 30 day extension of the end of  negotiation
>date so that all of us can review and give input to the agreement.
>    It is our hope that we be viewed as the advisory behind ICANN, that through
>our public input we can help all parties understand and accomodate public stake
>holder opinion. We also believe that through this process we can help gather
>support for the relationship between ICANN and Verisign.
>    Thank you for any consideration you can give this important request at this
>time.
>
>The GA?
>
>I just see time is critical here so I offer this as a starting point for a letter
>to our council.
>
>My previous letters would go elsewhere in case there is confusion.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>DPF wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
>>
>> >to all-
>> >
>> >at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in business,
>> >"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
>> >proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
>> >"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
>> >
>> >It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
>> >support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of all the
>> >comments supporting "status quo" or option A.
>>
>> Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
>> argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
>> stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
>> undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
>> certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.
>>
>> >Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow for
>> >any DNSO input before the board's vote.
>> >
>> >I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any decision.
>>
>> Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
>> resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
>> for a 30 day extension?
>>
>> The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
>> public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
>> to consider and analyse them.
>>
>> If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
>> (status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
>> we are getting.
>>
>> If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
>> confidence a win-win solution can be found.
>>
>> DPF
>> --
>> [email-masked]
>> ICQ 29964527
>> --
>> 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
>

- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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 #334
************************