Re: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign
My comments to revised version A. The Names Council resolves to communicate to the ICANN Board the following statement.I would include: "The negotiations with a single gTLD registry" C. The NC proposes that a win-win position for ICANN and the internet community would be for the Board to request an extension of time from the US Department of Commerce and to re-negotiate terms of the revised agreement with the following provisions:I don't think ICANN has the option to re-negotiate anything. ICANN signed a contract (option A) and is committed to accept it. VERISIGN (kindly?) offered to review that contract and developed a different option (B). So, if we are asking for best conditions to Verisign competitors, do we think Verisign will accept? I do not. I think they will remain, in the worst of the cases, with option A, and nothing will happen. Oscar Robles Philip Sheppard wrote: 011301c0b6cf$6202a580$6501a8c0@aim.be"> -- Saludos, Oscar A. Robles Garay --------------------------------------------------------- Centro de Servicios de Informacion y Registro en Internet Direccion de Informatica ITESM, Campus Monterrey --------------------------------------------------------- NIC-Mexico Top Level Domain .MX http://www.nic.mx orobles@nic.mx Tel. +52(8)387-5346 Fax. +52(8)328-4208
|