RE: [council] Revised draft NC position on verisign

[Vany Martinez <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Dear Phillip and all:

I join also with Theresa to give you thanks for the effort of writting the 
draft of the NC Statement.

I think there are things that we haven't took in count and that it deserves 
consideration:

1.  Verisign (Joe Simms) stated clearly that the New Agreement Proposal is 
not open to any changes that anyone may want to propose
2.  No one had the kindness to even communicate to DNSO that there were 
plans to draft a New Agreement Proposal neither invite us to participate in 
such process (drafting the New Agreement Proposal), since such New 
Agreement Proposal involves policy matters that regards to the DNSO.

Taking in count this points, I propose a different focus to the Proposed NC 
Statement for the ICANN Board:

1.  Remain pointing out all the concerns about the process conducted 
regarding Verisign New Agreement Proposal
2.  Remain asking to the Board to request an extension of time from the US 
Department of Commerce....and now here is where it changes the focus of the 
statement:
The actual statement is oriented to be in favor in New Agreement Proposal 
by doing amendments.  However, actually, do we know if really a new 
agreement proposal is needed?
Anybody made a serioius evaluation of the actual status of substantive 
policy matters that involves the current agreement, if they are working as 
expected? or maybe we need other policies?  Who decides that a change is 
needed ICANN?, Verisign?, the US DoC?. If the decision is in hands of 
ICANN, the DNSO can participate in such decision?  So, instead of 
requesting a time in order to review specific aspectes of the Verisign 
Agreement Proposal, we can do the follwing:
  .... in order to conduct the right process which would guide us to 
whether stay with actual agreement or seek to change such agreement and if 
it is arrived to the conclusion of change actual agreements, then conduct 
the proper process with the participation of all parties in drafting such 
new agreement proposal.

However, because it was requested our input with such very short notice, we 
also developed the following statement for ICANN Board in order to be taken 
in count.....

[and then here can come all the A, B, C, D and all constituencies statements]

Please, let me know what do you think of this.

Best Regards
Vany


Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
a member of the Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency of the 
ICANN's DNSO
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
Fax:  (507)  230-3455