Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 19:08:28 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 03:23:23PM +1300, David Farrar wrote:

>> But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
>> still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
>> April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.
>
>The April 1 date is based on the May 10 deadline:

I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.

>    "The existing ICANN-NSI Registry Agreement (covering the .com, .net,
>    and.org registries) provides (in Section 23) that the Agreement will
>    expire on 10 November 2003, unless NSI (now VeriSign) separates
>    legal ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar
>    business within 18 months of the signing of the agreement, or May
>    10, 2001."
>
>Something must happen by May 10; the DoC must go through whatever
>approval process it requires (which could easily take a month). 

Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
to be a Registrar.

But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.

>> I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
>> *.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
>> registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
>> public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
>> minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
>> the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.
>> 
>> If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
>> why bother having one. 
>
>The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  

Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
comments page on a website.

>> What I believe is the sensible way forward is
>> for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
>> proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
>> three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.
>
>That would be nice.  It also would have been nice if the ICANN staff and
>NSI could have started working on this 9 months ago, but the ICANN staff
>has been working on some other things -- the new gTLDs, for example -- 
>they are behind on that, as well.

Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
ICANN.

>> Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
>> try and be pushed through in less than a month.  
>
>ICANN is resource-constrained.  They aren't a government, remember: they
>can't just print some more money and hire more lawyers; they can't raise
>your taxes.  Perhaps more relevant: they don't have any authority to
>tell NSI how or when to negotiate. 

NSI are the ones who stand to lose the registry if there is no change
to the agreement.  It is very much in their interest to have ICANN
give this matter serious consideration rather than by trying to rush
things through risk rejection.

As for ICANN being resource-constrained I would suggest that is
partially of their own making.  Their dealings with the ccTLDs whom
they expect to fund a third of ICANN have ben less than impressive.
ICANN needs the ccTLDS far more than they need ICANN.

>> Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
>> But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
>> for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.
>> 
>> A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
>> be rushed through in a month.
>
>ICANN simply doesn't have the power, authority, or mechanism at its
>disposal that you seem to think it does.  Of course it would be nice if
>there was lots of time, but it isn't there.

There can easily be more time by a two month extension to the deadline
in the existing contract.

>It might be that the proposed agreements are not good for the Internet
>Community.  It may be that the best strategy for the ICANN board at this
>point is to simply let the contracts expire on May 10, and let the chips
>fall where they may -- seems irresponsible on the face of it, but maybe
>it is the best course of action.  

My preferred option is to extend the deadline for two months.  If it
is not extended then the next preferred option is not to undertake a
change of this magnitude and let the contracts expire on May 10.
After all this was the original plan.

But if neither side are pigheaded on this and allow ICANN and
especially the DNSO adequate time to consider the pros and cons of the
proposed changes, one may well find that there are merits in the
proposal.  I would very much like to have the DNSO get input from
competing Registrars for *.com about how they feel about the proposed
changes.

>If you think so, then by all means
>send your cogent comments to the Board.  But I don't think that
>complaints about process are going to have any effect -- it seems to me
>that this is in fact a genuine emergency situation, where the Board is
>forced to make a decision under tight time constraints, and I don't
>think they like it any better than any one else. 

There is no emergency except a self imposed one.  The Board it seems
have been totally unaware of the staff negotiations and you are right
they might be unhappy also.  They should not accept that the only two
options are the status quo or agreeing to the entire package of
amendments.  The Board should take the time to consult the DNSO and if
necessarily negotiate a different set of amendments with NSI if that
is what is warranted.  

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html