<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- To: svl@nrw.net
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 22:25:16 +1100
- Cc: svl@nrw.net, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com, karl@CaveBear.com, jcohen@shapirocohen.com, phil.davidson@bt.com, f.fitzsimmons@att.net, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, hans@icann.org, shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp, quaynor@ghana.com, roberts@icann.org, helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de, linda@icann.org, vint cerf <vcerf@mci.net>, ga@dnso.org, ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org, core@corenic.org
- In-Reply-To: <200103082032.VAA22473@dnso.dnso.org>
- References: <5.0.2.1.2.20010308130157.05091560@shoe.reston.mci.net><01K0YCO9QGFCA0UDLI@shoe.reston.mci.net>
- Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org
At 07:34 AM 3/9/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
>I agree that's nothing wrong in having Joe as counsel, as it would
>not be wrong to have NC and DNSO as counsel.
Siegfried,
There is a very large difference between interacting with an individual and
interacting with a group.
This was made abundantly clear during today's Names Council meeting in
Melbourne.
The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and
timing of the proposed new Verisign contract. They spent no time at all
considering the actual merits of the proposal.
Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.
From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not be
tolerated.
>so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
>they were made for ? because of the success ?
Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of
the community. As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration,
such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used
multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of
3-6 times higher than it should be.
Another example of the gross disproportion: Verisign has 3 TLDs when other
registries have (will have) only one.
A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all
would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other
gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.
We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the
proposed contract. For example, if we reject a proposal that largely
"regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger
Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the
disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.
Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, rather
than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253; fax: +1.408.273.6464
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|