Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

         I have been hesitant to enter into this debate, but I think the 
post below calls for a response.  The Names Council, entirely properly, 
focused on the point most relevant to the consideration of these contracts 
-- that it is illegitimate for ICANN to enter into the proposed contracts, 
which embody a variety of policy reversals and innovations, without 
adequate time for consultation and without any reason to think that the 
proposals have community support.  It's worth noting that the problem here 
was created entirely by Verisign and ICANN staff, given that the proposed 
changes were under negotiation since last summer but were carefully kept 
until wraps until the last possible moment, apparently in an attempt to 
prevent the wide-ranging discussion that would have accompanied a timely 
announcement.

         The post below also suggests that the primary impact of the new 
contracts is to deprive Verisign of disproportionate, gross advantages that 
it currently enjoys.  Let me just say that if that were the case, I would 
be hard put to understand why Verisign favors the changes so strongly  . . .

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
co-chair, Working Group C
Professor of Law, Wayne State University
weinberg@msen.com




At 10:25 PM 3/11/2001 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
>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@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-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