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

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

Dear Erica:

I share your feelings.

In fact, the proposal of an addition to the NC Statement regarding Versign
agreements, once I sent by e-mail and read again in the teleconference we held
some days ago, and which I repeat again here, it is most near to support the
creation of procedures that ensures that the DNSO be an active part of issues
like the one is worrying us now:

------------
Remain asking to the Board to request an extension of time from the US
Department of Commerce...
" .... 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."
------------

But as you said, remarking our concerns to the ICANN Board while begin to work
in a set of procedures or best practices in issues like this one,  its an idea
that I support.  

Of course, we shouldn't forget that more things to do will come pertaining the
new agreement where I hope that ICANN advise us with enough time in advance to
do a proper job.  

Best Regards
Vany 

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa
http://www.sdnp.org.pa


Cheers
Vany       



El lun, 02 abr 2001, Erica Roberts escribió:
> 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
> >