Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #336
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, April 2 2001            Volume 01 : Number 336

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 09:37:52 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Dave Crocker 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?

Good point.

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

No. The DNSO's job is to develop policy, which the board and staff are then
responsible for implementing.

As long as the negotiations conform to the policy, we have no more to do than
offer comment. Perhaps not even that. Arguably, we should just shut up and let
them get on with the job.

Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the separation
of registry and registrar. I do not think board and staff have the authority
to do that without DNSO approval. I don't think they have the approval, and I
don't think it should be granted.
- --
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 16:38:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted

Andy Müller-Maguhn just sent out these messages to his icann-news
mailing list.

- ----- Forwarded message from Andy Müller-Maguhn <[email-masked]> -----

From: Andy Müller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:02:27 +0200
Subject: [icann board telco] verisign agreement adopted
Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm

just a short note after the boards telephone call today -
the new versign agreement with some soft changes 
arrangend between the new ICANN ceo Stuart Lynn in
cooperation with ICANN lawyers Joe Sims and Louis 
Touton has been adopted by the board with 12 votes,
3 against (amadeu abril i abril, karl auerbach, myself)
and 1 abstain (ken fockler). The style of the discussion
- - which was about 40 minutes - was rushed by vint
cerf cause he wanted to keep the length of the telconf
< 1 h.

Ken´s argument, that the NC gave a clear vote against
the new proposal ("B") was rejected by the president
with the argument, that the arguments of the NC where
mentioned and lead to the changes.  My suggestion,
to give the NC´s constituencys at least 2 days for
commenting the work from the Lynn/Sims/Touton 
that was send in a confidential note sunday (yesterday)
to the board, was rejected by the Lynn/Sims/Tounton
with the argument that the finalized statement would
still mean a lot of work until have it as a written
contract and any delay would make it worse. 

ICANN website will give an overview of the adopted
decision soon.

sorry for only giving you a brief summary here, sitting
on the airport of duesseldorf and have to rush to my
airplane now...

A.

- --- 

Andy Mueller-Maguhn, [email-masked], Key ID 331F978, http://www.ccc.de/~andy

- ----- End forwarded message -----
- ----- Forwarded message from Andy Müller-Maguhn <[email-masked]> -----

From: Andy Müller-Maguhn <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:17:26 +0200
Subject: [icann] Preliminary Report / Special Meeting of the Board April
 2nd 2001
Mailing-List: contact [email-masked]; run by ezmlm

http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02apr01.htm

Preliminary Report

Special Meeting of the Board

2 April 2001 (Posted 2 April 2001)

The ICANN Board of Directors held a meeting by teleconference on 2 April
2001. Directors Vint Cerf (chairman), Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach,
Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Phil Davidson, Ken Fockler, Masanobu
Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Andy
Mueller-Maguhn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, Helmut Schink,
and Linda S. Wilson participated. The Board adopted the following
resolutions:

Contract for IANA Function

(Adopted 16-0, with Andy Mueller-Maguhn not yet present due to telephone
difficulties)

Whereas, as provided by resolutions 00.5 and 00.6, ICANN entered a contract
with the United States Government on 9 February 2000 under which it
performed the IANA functions through 30 September 2000;

Whereas, as provided in resolution 00.71 that contract was extended to 31
March 2001;

Whereas, the United States Government has requested that the contract be
renewed to provide a continuing contractual basis for ICANN's provision of
the IANA function as the transition of Internet-coordination functions from
the United States Government to ICANN progresses;

Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has reviewed the terms of the renewal
contract with the Board and recommended that the Board enter into the
agreement on those terms;

Resolved [01.45], the Board accepts the terms of the renewal contract as
reviewed with the Board; and

Resolved further [01.46], the Board authorizes the General Counsel to sign
the renewal contract on behalf of the Corporation in the form presented.

Revision to Agreements with VeriSign

(Adopted 12-3, with one abstension. Vint Cerf, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan
Cohen, Phil Davidson, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong,
Stuart Lynn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, and Linda S. Wilson
voted in favor. Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, and Andy
Mueller-Maguhn voted against. Ken Fockler abstained. Helmut Schink had left
the call by the time of the vote.)

Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various revisions
in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc., and the United
States Department of Commerce that were approved on 4 November 1999 in
resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed on 10 November 1999;

Whereas, the proposal was forwarded to all three supporting organizations
with a request for comments;

Whereas, in resolution 01.22 the Board requested all members of the
Internet community, including the Names Council and any of the
constituencies and other participants in the Domain Name Supporting
Organization, to provide comments on the substantive merits of the proposal
no later than 31 March 2001;

Whereas, on 9 March 2001 the Protocol Supporting Organization notified the
Board that it had considered the proposal only with regard to potential
protocol-related technical issues as a result of splitting .com, .net and
.org into three registries, and saw no problems with this approach
providing that the stability of the DNS resolution is protected;

Whereas, on 30 March 2001 the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting
Organization (DNSO) forwarded a four-part resolution accompanied by
statements of the seven DNSO constituencies and participants in the DNSO
general assembly;

Whereas, numerous comments of the Internet community have been received on
ICANN's web-based public comment forum, by e-mail, and otherwise;

Whereas, in response to the comments ICANN has asked VeriSign for
improvement of the proposed agreements through the addition of some text
changes and other related undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign;

Whereas, VeriSign has stated its commitment to make those improvements;

Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the proposal in connection with
the input from the supporting organizations and Internet community and the
improvements agreed by VeriSign and finds that acceptance of the proposal
is necessary and appropriate to further ICANN's purposes;

Resolved [01.47] that the President is authorized on behalf of the
Corporation to sign the proposed agreements with VeriSign as presented,
with suitable revisions and additions to the provisions of the agreements
to reflect the text changes and additional commitments set forth in the
posted correspondence with Stratton Sclavos and with any further
corrections and modifications consistent with the proposal that the
President determines are appropriate, such signing to be subject to any
necessary approvals of the U.S. Department of Commerce;

Further resolved [01.48], the President is authorized to take such actions
as appropriate to implement the agreements.

- ----- End forwarded message -----

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:46:10 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 04:21:41AM -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
> All Members,
> 
> Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
> Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
> in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
> modifications and new contract with Verisign.
> 
> So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
> this letter.
> 
> Speak now or do not be counted.

The letter is a waste of time.

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:01:57 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:14:57AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> WXW wrote:-
> We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
> dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
> that we are trying to build.
> 
> William,
> What is doing more harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and the processes
> we are trying to build is last minute revisions to irrevocable ICANN
> contracts that we were told could not be revised.

Correction: In fact we were told that VRSN refused to countenance an
extension, or changes.  As far as I know, VRSN still refuses to
contenance an extension; but they agreed at the last minute some changes
which it hoped would sweeten the deal (which is it's right as an
independent actor in all this).  ICANN jumped at the opportunity to
wring a few more concessions. 

> This warrants a clear
> message of objection to be sent to the decision makers in a timely fashion.

No, it doesn't.

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 08:14:26 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:37:52AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> Dave Crocker 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?
> 
> Good point.
> 
>>Remember that our job is not to negotiate the contract but to offer comments.
> 
> No. The DNSO's job is to develop policy, which the board and staff are then
> responsible for implementing.

Dave is talking about the concrete "now"; you are talking in the 
abstract; no intrinsic conflict exists between them.

>As long as the negotiations conform to the policy, we have no more to do than
>offer comment. Perhaps not even that. Arguably, we should just shut up and let
>them get on with the job.
> 
>Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the separation
>of registry and registrar.

1) There is no such policy.

2) It does not scrap the separation of registry and registrar.  It 
specifies the type of separation.  

>I do not think board and staff have the authority
>to do that without DNSO approval.

In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act 
without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the 
Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.

Indeed, there are few controls over a "Rogue Board" -- if the Board as a 
whole decides that it wants to turn the assets of the corporation to another 
non-profit, it could do that, for example.

But there are few controls over a "Rogue DNSO", either. 

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

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

Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:18:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 06:37 AM 4/2/2001, Sandy Harris wrote:
>Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the separation
>of registry and registrar

As has been repeatedly explained:

         The EXISTING contract does not prevent Verisign from running
         BOTH registry and registrar businesses.

The claim that there is a a policy against it is negated by the fact that 
Verisign has no contractual limitation in this matter.

So you are rejecting a markedly better contract because of a so-called 
policy that has no relevance to the comparison between alternatives.

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, 2 Apr 2001 11:40:58 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to board.

I cannot support the letter. 

I wasn't able to tell if everyone needed to weigh in against sending the
letter versus in support of sending the letter. 

Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 10:46 AM
To: ga dnso
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 04:21:41AM -0700, Eric Dierker wrote:
> All Members,
> 
> Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
> Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
> in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
> modifications and new contract with Verisign.
> 
> So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
> this letter.
> 
> Speak now or do not be counted.

The letter is a waste of time.

- -- 
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
- --
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 08:39:15 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 11:52 PM 4/1/2001, DPF wrote:
>Oh please.  You wave every single complaint about ICANN away as
>unjustified whinging and never ever seem to wonder if there is a
>reason for it.  Do you really think the whole world is wrong all the
>time?

Please consider the perspective of your comments.

The tiny number of participants in ICANN discussions is not the whole 
world. It is an extremely selective sampling.

As to wondering why there is so much whining, indeed I often do, though you 
will not be surprised that my assessment for the reason(s) is quite 
different from yours.  Please see 
<http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/> for some of my 
perspective, notably 
<http://brandenburg.com/presentations/Level-10-routing/sld009.htm>.

>I have said the concessions are welcome but the fact concessions have
>been made is absolutely no excuse to act in less than a professional
>manner and require adequate analysis of decisions which have huge and
>irreversible effects.

Thank you for noting the need for professionalism.  Unfortunately your 
assessment of relvant behavior is quite simply wrong.

Professionals make contractual decisions in minutes, not months.

>You also do a dis-service by suggesting that all complaints re process
>are unimportant.

Distorting my comments is not helpful.  I was careful in my writing; please 
be careful in your reading.

Since you are so concerned about process, I am sure that you will 
appreciate the need for carefully attending to what people really say.

>A complaint that one has less
>than 24 hours and no formal opportunity for input is not trivial and
>in fact goes to the very heart of ICANN's bylaws and founding
>principles.

This takes us directly back to the core fact that Verisign is running a 
business and has no philosophical interest, and even less business 
incentive, in the casual process that you want.

They have an existing contract.  They have agreed to an alternative.  They 
have a deadline.

The ICANN Board has a choice to make and the choice is required by the 
deadline.

You might see the latest revision as an example that public feedback can 
have an effect; you are right.  You might see it as meaning that we can get 
a delay; you are almost certainly wrong.  Changing dates affects schedules; 
changing schedules affects expenses and revenues.

What is Verisign's incentive for agreeing to a delay?

>If I had a casual attitude about the content I would try to make a
>snap judgement on them without having time to gather further
>information and do a detailed analysis.  It is due to my desire to be
>able to consider the content that say the main issue for now is
>gaining the delay.

In the last MONTH of careful analysis through public discussion, there was 
intense focus on issues that were entirely irrelevant to the contract 
choice, and essentially no attention to the key contract differences that 
matter.

For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not 
been doing it.

What is notably casual is the attitude towards the actual services being 
provided to the net.

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, 2 Apr 2001 11:57:14 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Letter to board.

some of the changes were in what was asked for by the constituencies. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 11:02 AM
To: ga dnso
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 06:14:57AM -0400, Joanna Lane wrote:
> WXW wrote:-
> We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
> dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
> that we are trying to build.
> 
> William,
> What is doing more harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and the processes
> we are trying to build is last minute revisions to irrevocable ICANN
> contracts that we were told could not be revised.

Correction: In fact we were told that VRSN refused to countenance an
extension, or changes.  As far as I know, VRSN still refuses to
contenance an extension; but they agreed at the last minute some changes
which it hoped would sweeten the deal (which is it's right as an
independent actor in all this).  ICANN jumped at the opportunity to
wring a few more concessions. 

> This warrants a clear
> message of objection to be sent to the decision makers in a timely
fashion.

No, it doesn't.

- -- 
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
- --
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 09:10:16 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 05:51 AM 4/2/2001, Paul Svensson wrote:
>The issue isn't if option C is an improvement on option B (which it
>apparently seems to be), but whether it's an improvement on option A.

I agree entirely.

>Which means, that even if it's obvious that it's a step in the right
>direction, it may take more than 24 hours to analyze wether it goes
>far enough.

Let me save you some effort:  The newest revisions do NOT go far enough.

So is that a reason to reject all of its improvements and, instead, to 
choose the very much inferior existing contract?

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 09:08:13 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 03:54 AM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>I definately hope this was tongue in cheek, because it is almost word for 
>word,
>the justification for the group that started WWII  Someone correct me if I am
>wrong.

OK.

You are wrong.

And very misguided.  My comments have nothing to do with appeasement.  They 
have to do with dealing with reality.  I encourage you to distinguish 
between them.

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 09:17:26 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

At 08:14 AM 4/2/2001, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:37:52AM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
> >Here, though, the negotiated deal violates policy by scrapping the 
> separation
> >of registry and registrar.
>
>1) There is no such policy.
>
>
> >I do not think board and staff have the authority
> >to do that without DNSO approval.
>
>In fact, the board has the legal, moral, and and ethical DUTY to act
>without DNSO approval, if they find it is in the best interests of the
>Internet.  This is clearly spelled out in the Bylaws.

These two items demonstrate the pervasive tendency to debate about 
theoretical issues that have no factual basis in ICANN legal documents.

As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the 
responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about 
the relevant fact, not theory.

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 09:26:25 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Letter to board.

At 04:21 AM 4/2/2001, Eric Dierker wrote:
>So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
>this letter.

I object to the letter.  It is misguided and wasteful.

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 18:27:19 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] antitrust action

I do not see how the approved plan may lead to anything else than a 
fossilization of the iCANN TLD model in propagating to the new 
developing  TLDs the same competition and innovation limitations as 
tailored for the very specific case of the historic leading registry. This 
approval also crowns the Staff as the iCANN governor and acknowledges that, 
in the BoD opinion, Staff knows better than BoD, than DNSO, than 
stakeholders and than users what is good for them and for the Internet 
Community as a whole. This approvals mainly gives VeriSign the control of 
the Internet unless the stakeholders may react in a bold enough manner. It 
calls on short or medium range for an anti-trust international action as 
already investigated by GAC members. This BoD decision also gives the iCANN 
a self-approval to pursue and develop its "take-away" policy - today .biz, 
probably soon .org - to proceed in ignoring SO rights and obligations, to 
imagine new plans for new decisions, new control, new independent ventures, 
new violations of its changing bylaws, new contradictions with its founding 
White Paper.

I can only say, bravo Mr. Touton, bvravo Mr. Sims. What a pity for the 
world you are so good.
Jefsey

Special thanks to
Amadeu Abril i Abril
Karl Auerbach
Andy Müller Maghun

Also extended to
Ken Fockler
Chuck Gomes.

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 03:11:41 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
NOT A DONE DEAL
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
On Saturday, March 03, 2001 1:41 AM (ADST), Kent Crispin wrote:
Subject: Re: More ICANN "Transparency"

> I know that people would love to sit here and wallow in conspiracy
> theories, but this is not a done deal; the board hasn't voted on it, and
> I'm quite sure that they haven't made up their mind to accept it or
> reject it -- there are lots of REAL questions here:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
WHY VRSGN WOULDN'T NEGOTIATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
On Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:58 AM (ADST), Kent Crispin wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

> That doesn't follow.  In fact, vsgn's willingness or unwillingness to
> negotiate is totally irrelevant.  There are a million completely
> legitimate reasons why vsgn may not want to negotiate further -- there
> could be other negotiations taking place over the sale of the registrar,
> for example, that are contingent on the content of the current proposal.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
LET THE COMMUNITY DECIDE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------
On Sunday, March 18, 2001 1:09 AM (ADST), Kent Crispin wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

> Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ICANN staff
> was trying to get what they considered the best possible deal for the
> internet community out of those discussions, and let the community
> decide whether they were good enough.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------

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: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:24:05 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted

Monday, April 02, 2001, 7:38:57 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Ken´s argument, that the NC gave a clear vote against
> the new proposal ("B") was rejected by the president
> with the argument, that the arguments of the NC where
> mentioned and lead to the changes.

Just as I said last night.

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:26:33 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

Hello Kent,

Monday, April 02, 2001, 8:14:26 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:

> But there are few controls over a "Rogue DNSO", either. 

Pray tell what a "Rogue DNSO" is, Kent?

One that can't be controlled into giving the specific advice the
ICANN board wants as a rubber stamp of what they intended to do long
before they ever referred it to the DNSO?

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

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

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

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:28:48 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Letter to board.

Hello Marilyn,

Monday, April 02, 2001, 8:57:14 AM, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> some of the changes were in what was asked for by the constituencies. 

Nothing more than a token nod that they could use to dismiss the
criticism and rejection of the new contract by the DNSO
Constituencies, the DNSO Names council, and the DNSO General Assembly.

It was a manipulation, nothing more, nothing less.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 03:54:38 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

David Crocker

On Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:39 AM (ADST), Dave Crocker wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> In the last MONTH of careful analysis through public discussion, there was
> intense focus on issues that were entirely irrelevant to the contract
> choice, and essentially no attention to the key contract differences that
> matter.
>
> For all of the claim that people want to do careful analysis, they have not
> been doing it.

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 2:17 AM (AEST), Dave Crocker wrote:
Subject: [ga] serious participation in ICANN processes

> As people claim to be serious participants, they should consider the
> responsibility that participation carries, to be adequately educated about
> the relevant fact, not theory.

Exactly, David.  As a serious participant you should not make false statements
when you say "essentially no attention to the key contract differences that
matter".  It is clear that every aspect possible has been discussed in detail.

To be "adequately educated", you might read the results of the month of careful
analysis before you get carried away with your own sense of self-importance:

DNSO Input on Proposed VeriSign Agreement Revisions (28 March 2001)
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign-revisions-28mar01.htm

I was going to copy it to this post but there was so much "careful analysis", I
thought it would not be appropriate.  Others on the list can easily judge.

On Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:39 AM (AEST), you also wrote:

> The tiny number of participants in ICANN discussions is not the whole
> world. It is an extremely selective sampling.

Yes, David.  And, as you know, they include many of the world's leading
authorities.  Fortunately, most of the others declare any interests openly.

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #336
************************