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

["Cochetti, Roger" <RCochetti@verisign.com>]

Erica-

I'd like to comment on both the factual record and on the proposals
contained in your note of yesterday.

First, I do not think that the Council ever made "...it clear that the
Internet community does not support Option B."  In fact, the closest that
the Council came to specifically addressing the question of whether it
supported Plan B or Plan A was its vote on Part B of the Philip Sheppard's
resolution, which said in part that "...if forced to choose between the
existing agreement or the revised agreement, as written, the NC reluctantly
chooses the existing agreement.".  The recorded vote on this item was 9 to 6
to 1.

As you know, the ICANN Bylaws provide that if the Council wishes to advise
the ICANN Board on what it believes are matters of policy, then the Council
may do so by presenting a consensus position (two thirds of its nineteen
members which would be 13 supporting the "consensus" position) or by
presenting majority and minority positions (ten or more supporting the
majority position and nine or less supporting the minority position) to the
ICANN Board.  Given that the Council vote expressing "reluctant" support for
Plan A recorded 9 favorable votes (and 6 negative votes), it would be
difficult to say that the Council made "...it clear that the Internet
community does not support Option B." or that "...the Bod disregarded this
advice..."  

Later you assert that "...there was no adequate consultation process..."
Reasonable people can disagree over how much consultation is "adequate",
however we should not ignore the quite substantial consultations that openly
took place:

a) The Names Council devoted a significant portion of one meeting and the
entirety of a separate meeting to this topic; and

b) Every one of the DNSO's seven Constituencies, as well as the DNSO General
Assembly, filed comments with the Names Council on this topic and most --if
not all-- of the Constituencies held one or more separate meetings on this
topic.  Many of these DNSO Constituency meetings featured ICANN and/or
VeriSign staff who answered questions and amplified on the proposed
agreements; and

c) The ICANN Board devoted a major part of its Public Comments Forum in
Melbourne to this topic and then entertained additional public comments on
this topic during its subsequent Board meeting; and

d) ICANN hosted and considered a Web-based, Public Comments Forum on this
topic beginning on March 1st, and this Web-based comment Forum generated
around seven hundred public comments. 

In addition to the above, there were numerous meetings, briefings,
exchanges, etc. that further served to explore this topic.  The above
consultation process may not, in the view of some, have been adequate.  Even
if you feel that it was "not adequate", it is hardly credible to ignore the
consultative process that did take place or fail to recognize it as having
been substantial.  To whatever extent you feel that the consultative process
that did take place was not adequate, however, I think that the critique can
only be credible if it is specific.  

For example, you may feel that the Names Council should have conducted more
meetings on this topic (3 or 4 instead 2?).  You may feel that each DNSO
Constituency should have been required to file more comments (White Papers
instead of position papers?)  Whatever you feel was missing in the
consultative process that made it inadequate should be specified so that the
rest of us can decide whether we agree or do not agree with what you would
feel is necessary to have made this consultation "adequate".  

Finally, on your three proposals, we all want to strengthen the Council's
credibility, but I doubt that vague complaints about a matter that ICANN
management has already asserted is not a matter of policy will do much to do
so. Regarding a new procedure that you propose -- under which the Council
would recognize any topic to be a matter of policy if two or more DNSO
Constituencies asserted that it was -- needs to be carefully thought
through.  Since the threshold for declaring any topic to be a matter of
policy would be set so low under your proposal, it is not hard to see how it
could lead to abuses that would undermine the Council's credibility by
forcing the Council to treat many matters as "policy" that most
Constituencies would not.

Roger

  



-----Original Message-----
From: Erica Roberts [mailto:erica.roberts@bigpond.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 8:03 AM
To: council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Fw: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign
agreements


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
>