Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #474
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 19 2001            Volume 01 : Number 474

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:39:22 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

At 08:55 AM 5/18/2001 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
>At 21:03 +0000 5/17/01, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>><snip>
>>Outside of the limited timeframe that was intended for this situation, it 
>>will constitute a bias.
>>Seen in the long term, it will give the company that owns the Registry 
>>*and* a Registrar a definitive competitive advantage. And this simply 
>>because it gives the possibility to NSI/Verisign to plan in advance 
>>common strategies between the R-y and the R-ar parts, to make full use of 
>>synergies, to share know-how, and so on.
>>The competitive advantage of NSI-the-Registrar over the other testbed 
>>Registrars was not in the possibility of NSI-the-Registry unfairly 
>>blocking other Registrars or unfairly privilege NSI-the-Registrar (about 
>>which I will comment below), but in the fact that NSI Registrar had 
>>already the knowledge of the environment, operations and protocols that 
>>would have been put in place, knowledge that the others did not have.
>>This is a situation that cannot continue in the future. Technological 
>>change, commercial/technical solutions, and what else, can be put in 
>>place by Verisign-the-Registry after consultation (or at least full 
>>awareness) of Verisign-the-Registrar, and here lies the competitive 
>>advantage. This is why vertical integration has been a no-no since the 
>>early days (as Director Kraaijenbrink put well in MdR).
>
>Roberto -  There are many TLDs with no separation between registry and 
>registrar(s). There would be a great uproar around the world if ICANN even 
>attempted to adopt a consensus policy that TLD registries could not 
>include the registrar function.
>
>So a black and white rule on separation is very unlikely to win 
>approval.  If ICANN were to have a policy on registry-registrar 
>separation, then the policy would have to have some elements of 
>discrimination in it to deal with the circumstances when the community 
>believes that lack of separation is damaging to other registrars and 
>registry operators and to registrants.
>
>As everyone knows from the length and complexity of the original 1999 
>agreements, and of the proposed 2001 agreements, there is nothing simple 
>about dealing with issues related to market dominance.  It's even harder 
>to develop registry agreement language that would be acceptable to the 
>operators and to the community at large.  Beyond that, such language would 
>very likely run into national laws dealing with market dominance, as it 
>has in this case, where both the competition directorate of the EC and the 
>US DOJ have been taking a close look at the proposed new agreements.
>
>So, bottom line, ICANN as a private sector consensus body should stay out 
>of trying to either make or interpret competition law. Participants in the 
>ICANN process can (and have) avail themselves of recourse to national 
>competition bodies where needed.

Mike --

         It's great to see you on ga, but I'm quite confused by 
this.  Roberto wasn't suggested that ICANN should "make or interpret 
competition law."  Nor was he suggesting that ICANN promulgate a 
one-size-fits-all policy on registry-registrar separation, to apply from 
Andorra to Zanzibar.  Rather, he was urging that ICANN, in drafting and 
entering into agreements, should be mindful of the consequences of its 
actions for free and fair competition -- and that the ICANN/Verisign "plan 
B" is bad for competition.  Now, it's certainly possible to argue that 
ICANN should not pay attention to such concerns, and should attend only to 
purely technical matters, but in fact ICANN, in dealing with the gTLDs, has 
always concerned itself quite strongly with competition policy.  Here's a 
quote, for example, from ICANN's first status report to the Department of 
Commerce:

>[T]he most critical immediate challenge facing ICANN and the DOC remains 
>the creation of a fully competitive environment for the registration of 
>names in the global Top Level Domains -- in particular, .com., .net, and 
>.org. The transition from monopoly to competition in these domains is 
>necessary for the long-term success of the privatization approach endorsed 
>by the White Paper . . . . Obviously, full and fair competition requires 
>that all have the same opportunities, and to the extent that there are 
>consumer protection or other requirements, that all meet them equally. 
>Thus, it is critical to accomplishing the White Paper objective of 
>maximizing competition that (1) NSI's registry and registrar functions be 
>fully separated, so that NSI as a registrar does not have any structural 
>advantage over its registrar competitors; (2) NSI accept community 
>consensus policies relating to registrars, as reflected in ICANN's 
>accreditation standards; and (3) the relationship between NSI as registry 
>and all registrars does not allow NSI to impair or adversely affect the 
>development of competition because of its continuing monopoly position as 
>registry operator.

         (You're familiar with this document; I assume you wrote it.)  It's 
one thing to argue that the new Verisign contract is good because it's 
consistent with these concerns -- but your message above seems to suggest 
that ICANN shouldn't be troubling itself with these concerns in the first 
place.  Is that right?  Or is your point just that ICANN should not address 
competition issues in the *ccTLD* context?  (If so, I agree with you there.)

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:10:24 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

Hello /ICANN/DNSO/GA,

After a few weeks of discussion, we seem to have reached some sort of
equilibrium on this issue. It is now time to gather the feelings of the GA
on this issue.

Some have stated that DNSO should generate its own funding. Others, have
stated that ICANN should provide a budget. Historically, the current SO
situation is a dusfunctional compromise between the SOs being separate orgs,
with their own funding, and SOs being ICANN corporate subdivisions with
ICANN corporate budget. What we have here is a corporate division that has
to provide its own budget.

The problem with the current situation is that, with the SOs being
subdivisions of ICANN, under common fiscal management, there is no assurance
that monies donated to the DNSO will be spent for the DNSO. We have quite
the opposite, in fact. In addition, SOs are not meant to be revenue centers.
That very position leads to corruption of the SOs. Those two points, by
themselves, reduce or eliminate any possibility of the SOs being separately
funded, from external sources.

I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.

It is my personal opinion that this may actually increase the donation rate,
as there will then be some mechanism whereby contributors may see the level
of effectiveness for their particular cause. The way it is now, contributors
to ICANN can only be assured that their donations do NOT fund any SO
activity.

The DNSO cannot be realistically expected to raise its own funding under the
present fiscal restraints.

- --
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 14:30:52 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

I would be happy to Second this motion, when someone creates a simple motion
to pass.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO GA (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Danny Younger (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 18, 2001 14:10
Subject: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

Hello /ICANN/DNSO/GA,

After a few weeks of discussion, we seem to have reached some sort of
equilibrium on this issue. It is now time to gather the feelings of the GA
on this issue.

Some have stated that DNSO should generate its own funding. Others, have
stated that ICANN should provide a budget. Historically, the current SO
situation is a dusfunctional compromise between the SOs being separate orgs,
with their own funding, and SOs being ICANN corporate subdivisions with
ICANN corporate budget. What we have here is a corporate division that has
to provide its own budget.

The problem with the current situation is that, with the SOs being
subdivisions of ICANN, under common fiscal management, there is no assurance
that monies donated to the DNSO will be spent for the DNSO. We have quite
the opposite, in fact. In addition, SOs are not meant to be revenue centers.
That very position leads to corruption of the SOs. Those two points, by
themselves, reduce or eliminate any possibility of the SOs being separately
funded, from external sources.

I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.

It is my personal opinion that this may actually increase the donation rate,
as there will then be some mechanism whereby contributors may see the level
of effectiveness for their particular cause. The way it is now, contributors
to ICANN can only be assured that their donations do NOT fund any SO
activity.

The DNSO cannot be realistically expected to raise its own funding under the
present fiscal restraints.

- --
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: [email-masked]
- --
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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:06:02 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

I would be happy to Second this motion, when someone 
creates a simple
motion to pass.

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Roeland Meyer" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO GA (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Danny Younger (E-mail)" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 18, 2001 14:10
Subject: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

> I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
> formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
> actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
> adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
> allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.

As this motion was included in Roeland's original message, I exerpted it 
and suggest that it be used as the motion to pass.

Leah

- --
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 22:26:48 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

On 21:10 18/05/01, Roeland Meyer said:
>I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
>formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
>actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
>adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
>allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.

Seconded. Jefsey

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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:25:13 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN  Bottoms Up!  DNSO wins!

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DFAE.BBB74E70
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bottoms UP! Trying hard to link only to primary sources, which has made it
impossible to log anything this week on the VRSN contract now taking place
in Washington, but.....

 http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DFAE.BBB74E70
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#ffcc00><FONT color=3D#000000><STRONG><EM><FONT=20
color=3D#ffcc00>Bottoms UP!</FONT></EM></STRONG> Trying hard to link =
only to=20
primary sources, which has made it impossible to log anything this week =
on the=20
VRSN contract&nbsp;</FONT></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000>now taking place =
in=20
Washington, but.....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.lextext.com/icann/index.html">http://www.lextext.com/i=
cann/index.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DFAE.BBB74E70--

- --
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:38:09 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

On 21:10 18/05/01, Roeland Meyer said and Jsfsey said:
>I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
>formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
>actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
>adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
>allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.

Seconded. Jefsey

I would like a minor change of the last word to *accounts*.
i.e..............

I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
allocated and disbursed from ICANN central accounts.

A second for this?

/Bruce

- --
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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:48:48 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Operational Stability of the Internet

On 18 May 2001, at 12:34, Craig Simon wrote:

> I'll give it a shot.
> 
> First we define stability for this case: Let's say it means providing
> strong guarantees that a TLD, once made accessible to the Internet-using
> public via the legacy DNS, will not become inaccessible.

And when the current proposed entry of a duplicate TLD causes 
technical havoc in the DNS, should it remain?  I agree that once a TLD 
is in the root, any root, it should remain.  However, the legacy root 
should not enter a duplicate in any case.  If there is one, it should be 
understood that it may not work out.  We are going to see a real mess 
here when email is received by unintended recipients, nameservers with 
different IP addresses and the same hostname are queried...  

In the Paroot current zone generator, for instance, if a "new" TLD is 
entered and it already exists, it will be automatically rejected by the 
database. The same should be true for the legacy root.

> 
> This definition says nothing (yet) about guaranteeing the TLD registry's
> treatment of SLDs within the TLD, or guaranteeing that web content and
> email addresses made available via subordinate SLDs and 3LDs, etc. must
> remain accessible over time.

Nor should it, really.  You are then talking about business model, aren't 
you?  In order for a TLD to be operational, it should have capability of 
delegating SLDs, of course, but establishing email addresses, etc. is 
up to whoever provides those services for the SLD.  Some registries 
would offer only SLDs or 3LDs.  Any registry that delegates DN's should 
bear responsibility for their accessibility, but that should be based on 
their charter.  A registry cannot bear responsibility for subdomains of a 
delegated domain.That delegation implies a transfer of responsibility for 
that node, based upon the user agreement for the registry.  An entire 
node could be made "private" by instituting non-routables at all levels 
below it.

> 
> Therefore, to say we have a bare minimum of stability in the DNS, a TLD
> once published in the root must stay published in the root (barring
> exceptional circumstances like .NATO, perhaps), and the TLD operator must
> meet some minimum bandwidth and uptime performance requirements to answer
> valid DNS queries.

That is a given, IMO.  It is not operational if it can't respond to queries.  
Bandwidth, however could easily be proportional to the expectations of 
the TLD operation.  There are some that would be quite limited, while 
others would have enormous numbers.  It should be scalable.

> 
> So, adding one or several new TLDs to the root shouldn't be much of a
> problem. In fact dozens of ccTLDs were added each year during the 90's up
> till about '97. But nightmare scenarios do pop up when opening the TLD
> floodgates an an FCFS basis is contemplated.  No one disputes that the root
> can handle tens of thousands of new TLDs from a technical standpoint, but
> vetting them would turn out to be a significant administrative burden for
> the designated gatekeeper.
> 
> My initial presuppositon is that TLD integrity has to be held to a higher
> standard than SLD integrity.
With the gTLDs, this is true.  However, the ccTLDs delegate SLDs that 
are then utilized in the same way as the gTLDs.  e.g., .com.au, .co.uk, 
etc.  Those registries are held to the same standard as a TLD.  The 
context of the TLD/SLD is important in this case.  However, it is entirely 
up to the TLD holder to delegate this reponsibility - not the root operator.

 If you want to challenge that prevailing
> design choice, and say "Let them sink or swim without vetting," then
> opening the floodgates means that: 1) new technologies would have to be
> constructed for automating entries, modifications, etc. in the root (bumpy
> on the fly perhaps, but do-able); 2) we may to our dismay discover that the
> root has an upper size limit after all, and; 3) all the TM, cybersquatting,
> whois/privacy and other disputes that have plagued this community at the
> SLD level will be replicated at the TLD level.

Number one is quite do-able.  Number 2 is highly unlikely given that 
there are so many already in the roots.  Number three's problem would 
be drastically reduced with several hundred TLDs available.  It was 
artificially created by the TM lobby in striving to control the Internet for 
those special interests.

FCFS is fair, but should be mitigated with operational standards, IMO.  
Proof of operability is essential and there is a responsibility to 
registrants to ensure that it is operational.  However, it is also a market 
issue to a large degree.  Small companies can succeed or fail and 
should not have to be a major corporation to participate in the industry.  
Hopefully, the TLDA will be helpful in establishing some operational 
definitions that its members (TLD holders) will strive to achieve.

Leah

> 
> In other words, one by itself isn't the problem. The first drop of a flood
> is.

> 
> Craig Simon
> 
> "Tim Langdell, PhD" wrote:
> > 
> > "Stability of the Internet"
> > 
> > Can anyone out there tell me what is meant when someone talks of new
> > domain names (and let's say that this means new TLDs for the sake of
> > argument) affecting the "stability" of the Internet? Can anyone give me
> > even one example of how the introduction of a new TLD could affect such
> > "stability" in the slightest way?
> > 
> > Tim
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:18:59 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

Thank you all.

    Would the GA Chair please take this motion under advisement
and move forward with a *Straw Poll* of the DNSO-GA?

/Bruce

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jefsey Morfin" <[email-masked]>
To: "Bruce James" <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 18, 2001 16:07
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion: Funding of DNSO

Seconded the change by Bruce. Jefsey

On 22:38 18/05/01, Bruce James said:
>On 21:10 18/05/01, Roeland Meyer said and Jsfsey said:
> >I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD
for
> >formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN
BoD
> >actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding
be
> >adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
> >allocated and disbursed from ICANN central coffers.
>
>Seconded. Jefsey
>
>I would like a minor change of the last word to *accounts*.
>i.e..............
>
>I hereby make the motion that the GA and the NC petition the ICANN BoD for
>formal inclusion in the overall ICANN budgetary process, that the ICANN BoD
>actually fund all of the SOs, including the DNSO, and that this funding be
>adequate for the operation of the SOs. All monies donated can then be
>allocated and disbursed from ICANN central accounts.
>
>A second for this?
>
>/Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>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

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

Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:57:07 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Ballot 

The General Assembly will soon be conducting a vote on motions presented
(with ballots sent by the Secretariat as per the requirements at
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html ).

These are the rules for voting in the General Assembly:

1. A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.  A ballot consists of one
or more questions, each of which has two or more mutually exclusive answers.
The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the Secretariat.

2. The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.

3. Each voter can cast one vote for one alternative per question.

4. The alternative selected by more than 50% of the cast votes wins.

5. In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA,
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.

6. If no alternative gets the required number of votes, the Chair may
reissue the ballot with a smaller set of alternatives (a runoff), or declare
that there is no consensus in the GA on the question.

7. The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first
sent out.

As Chair, I have endeavored to work with motion authors to reach mutually
acceptable agreement on wording for the ballots.  Agreement has thus far
been reached with Roeland Meyer regarding his motion which will appear as
the following:

The General Assembly of the DNSO hereby petitions the ICANN Board to fund
the DNSO and all other ICANN Supporting Organizations with funding adequate
for the operation and administration of such Supporting Organizations (all
monies donated to be allocated and disbursed from ICANN central accounts).
The General Assembly of the DNSO further asks for formal inclusion in the
overall ICANN Budgetary process.

Agree/Disagree

It is expected that other outstanding motions will soon have ballot language
formulated.  Voting is scheduled to commence on the 21st (unless our
Secretariat requires a minor schedule modification).  Results of the vote
are scheduled to be posted by the Secretariat on the 28th.

- --
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:09:44 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Approval of Verisign Contract Announced

http://www2.osec.doc.gov/public.nsf/docs/icann-verisign-0518 

- --
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 19:11:03 -0400
From: [email-masked] (J. William Semich)
Subject: [ga] VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com

<bold>FYI:

VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com Address List

</bold>

(Bloomberg)  -- VeriSign Inc. won final U.S. approval to retain control
of the database used for Internet addresses that end with ``dot-com''
until 2007. 

The Commerce Department said it approved a decision by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers to change a 1999 contract with
Mountain View, California-based VeriSign. 

VeriSign shares rose $2.74 to $60.74. 

May/18/2001 17:10 ET 

Also see 

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010518/wr/tech_verisign_dc_5.html

Bill Semich

President and Founder

WorldNames, Inc.

http://www.worldnames.net

[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: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:25:03 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com

At 7:11 pm -0400 5/18/01, J. William Semich wrote:
>FYI:
>
>VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com Address List
>
>
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010518/wr/tech_verisign_dc_5.html
>

"A VeriSign spokesman said the company was pleased with the deal. ``It
certainly provides us clarity to move forward in our business and gives us
the focus we've been seeking,'' said spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy."

Let me see, now.

ICANN negotiated changes to the contract.

DoC then negotiated Further changes to the contract.

And this is the contract that our friendly ICANN staffer Joe Sims said was
NOT NEGOTIABLE at the Melbourne ICANN meeting.

I'll keep this in mind whenever I here anything that Joe Sims says.

- -- 
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:01:46 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com

> From: Andy Gardner [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:25 PM

> And this is the contract that our friendly ICANN staffer Joe 
> Sims said was
> NOT NEGOTIABLE at the Melbourne ICANN meeting.
> 
> I'll keep this in mind whenever I here anything that Joe Sims says.

Bear that in mind any time that ANYONE says something is not negotiable. The
only way it isn't negotiable is when they are literally holding a gun to
your head and you believe that they WILL pull the trigger. That's basic
business. Everything is negotiable, period. It is only a matter of
sufficient incentive.

- -- 
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:47:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com

Hi Andy and all:

Yes...I also have the same feeling than you.  I remember Joe Simms
ignoring my question ("Does Proposal of New Agreement is open to changes?) and
wanting to leave the podium but he didn't succeed because I requested him
to answer me such question again.  And then it was when he said that the
"Proposal of New Agreement is not open to changes".

Though this is something bitter that I won't forget, also I am conscient
that DNSO have to move forward first identifying the issues of the New
Agreement that is a matter of the DNSO from right now! Not wait until
deadlines in order to begin to work things in the last minute, neither
wait until ICANN request for comments in time when few things can be done.

Best Regards
Vany

On Fri, 18 May 2001, Andy Gardner wrote:

> At 7:11 pm -0400 5/18/01, J. William Semich wrote:
> >FYI:
> >
> >VeriSign Wins Approval to Keep Control of Dot-Com Address List
> >
> >
> >http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010518/wr/tech_verisign_dc_5.html
> >
>
> "A VeriSign spokesman said the company was pleased with the deal. ``It
> certainly provides us clarity to move forward in our business and gives us
> the focus we've been seeking,'' said spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy."
>
> Let me see, now.
>
> ICANN negotiated changes to the contract.
>
> DoC then negotiated Further changes to the contract.
>
> And this is the contract that our friendly ICANN staffer Joe Sims said was
> NOT NEGOTIABLE at the Melbourne ICANN meeting.
>
> I'll keep this in mind whenever I here anything that Joe Sims says.
>
>

- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa

- --
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:14:06 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Ballot

The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:

The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN Board
in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO recommends
to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an Individuals'
Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision at
the Stockholm plenary session.

Agree/Disagree

- --
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: Sat, 19 May 2001 13:07:16 +0800
From: "McMeikan, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  Ballot

Agree

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	babybows.com [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Saturday, May 19, 2001 11:14 AM
> To:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	[ga] Re:  Ballot
> 
> The motion put forward by Joop Teernstra has been worded as a ballot:
> 
> 
> The General Assembly of the DNSO resolves to express its support for the
> immediate acknowledgement of an Individuals' Constituency by the ICANN
> Board
> in accordance with its Bylaws.  The General Assembly of the DNSO
> recommends
> to the ICANN Board that it place either the creation of such an
> Individuals'
> Constituency or the "approval in principle" on its agenda for a decision
> at
> the Stockholm plenary session.
> 
> Agree/Disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #474
************************