[council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I am v concerned that the recent action by the BoD re the proposed new
Verisign Agreement.
The BoD has failed to adequately consult with, and take into account the
views of the Internet community expressed thru the NC.  The BoD requested
input from the NC only under pressure and made it clear that there was no
possibility of amending the proposed agreement.  However, when the NC made
it clear that the Internet community does not support Option B, the BoD
disrgarded this advice and agreed to an amended version of Option B.
There was no adequate consultation process and the decision made by the BoD
does not reflect the advice provided to it by the NC. As I see it, we have
three options before us:
1.  Write to the Board reiterating our expression of concern about the lack
of due process;
2.  Propose  a formal policy requiring an appropriate consultation process
on all issues which are viewed by two or more DNSO constituencies as
involving policy issues;
3:  Do nothing

 If we accept Option 3 and do nothing, then  we will be taken to have
consented to the Board action.
Option 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive and I propose that we ask the
Chair to write to the BoD reiterating our concern about the lack of due
process and move to develop a policy -  Standard Operating Procedeures -
which detail the process to be followed by ICANN in relating to consultation
with th DNSO.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Dierker" <Eric@hi-tek.com>
To: "DPF" <david@farrar.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements


> Dear Names Council,
>
>     We ask that you endorse and pass this letter along to Verisign and the
Board
> of Directors of ICANN.  We are not opposing the substance of the
amendments and
> or modifications to the agreements as we received them today, because we
have not
> had time to evaluate them.
>     What we ask is that you grant a 30 day extension of the end of
negotiation
> date so that all of us can review and give input to the agreement.
>     It is our hope that we be viewed as the advisory behind ICANN, that
through
> our public input we can help all parties understand and accomodate public
stake
> holder opinion. We also believe that through this process we can help
gather
> support for the relationship between ICANN and Verisign.
>     Thank you for any consideration you can give this important request at
this
> time.
>
> The GA?
>
> I just see time is critical here so I offer this as a starting point for a
letter
> to our council.
>
> My previous letters would go elsewhere in case there is confusion.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> DPF wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > >to all-
> > >
> > >at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in
business,
> > >"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
> > >proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
> > >"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
> > >
> > >It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
> > >support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of
all the
> > >comments supporting "status quo" or option A.
> >
> > Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
> > argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
> > stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
> > undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
> > certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.
> >
> > >Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow
for
> > >any DNSO input before the board's vote.
> > >
> > >I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any
decision.
> >
> > Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
> > resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
> > for a 30 day extension?
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
> > (status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
> > we are getting.
> >
> > If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
> > confidence a win-win solution can be found.
> >
> > DPF
> > --
> > david@farrar.com
> > ICQ 29964527
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>