RE: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign

[Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>]

Michael,

As I said, it's just a suggestion based on my reading of comments, and the
differing views (and in light of my dislike for just complaints without
suggested resolutions, some suggestions).

As was noted in Philip's suggestion there are some consistent views..
perhaps suggest preference if certain conditions are met, etc. could be
another route to go (i.e., that would be a real DNSO decision, but as the NC
we need to make sure that there is agreement -- and my sense was the
resolution needs some work to reflect what at least I've read on comments).

Theresa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:sastre@anwalt.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 5:31 PM
> To: Theresa Swinehart
> Cc: council@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign
>
>
> Theresa,
>
> I appreciate your alternative draft. However - isn't the DNSO and
> ICANN at
> large expecting us to come back with something "real" (at least
> this time)
> rather than to provide a statement which is diplomatically
> ballanced to an
> extent where the Board is finally left alone with it's own
> considerations ?
>
> Michael
>
> At 17:05 27.03.01 -0500, Theresa Swinehart wrote:
> >Philip, all,
> >
> >First, thank you for the preparation of the draft version 2
> resolution for
> >discussion on tomorrow's NC call. After reading the resolution,
> and reading
> >exchanges on it, I have a few thoughts about the resolution
> reflects and how
> >it summarizes the views of the different constituencies (or
> differing views
> >of constituencies). Would it not be better to have a short executive
> >statement, something such as the following:
> >
> >"Pursuant to the Melbourne ICANN Board resolution 01.22, the DNSO Names
> >Council forward to the ICANN Board the following comments on the
> substantive
> >merits of the ICANN/Verisign amendment [list comments annexed].
> In summary,
> >comments reflected a variety of views, with the key areas relating to
> >[list]. These issues should be taken into consideration by the Board."
> >
> >In the current proposed draft resolution, it would seem to me that the
> >points contained in section 'C' could be included in issues to
> be considered
> >by the Board (in second sentence in suggested para. above). It's my
> >understanding that the choice is between option A or B (unless
> I've missed
> >something) Do others have a different understanding?
> >
> >Anyway, this is just a suggestion, as I'm not sure from all the exchanges
> >the NC will have agreement on the current resolution as drafted given the
> >different constituency views (or differing in views, and extent to which
> >they prevail over option a or b).
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >Theresa
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> >Philip Sheppard
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2001 10:06 AM
> >To: NC (list)
> >Subject: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign
> >
> >
> >Following some feedback please find attached v2 of a draft NC position on
> >Verisign.
> >Changes from v1 are highlighted using the Word tracking function. We will
> >use v2 as the base document for discussion tomorrow March 28.
> >
> >Philip Sheppard
>