<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- To: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100
- Cc: svl@nrw.net, 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: <5.0.2.1.2.20010311155722.01c574d0@mail.msen.com>
- References: <5.1.0.10.2.20010311222202.024d8300@dcrocker.songbird.com><200103082032.VAA22473@dnso.dnso.org><5.0.2.1.2.20010308130157.05091560@shoe.reston.mci.net><01K0YCO9QGFCA0UDLI@shoe.reston.mci.net>
- Sender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org
At 08:08 AM 3/12/2001, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 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 . . .
It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract,
in contrast with the one already in place, that so thoroughly underscores
the LACK of propriety in the Names Council discussion.
There is never enough time. There are always constraints. It is trivially
easy to put forward many complaints.
The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be
constructive. The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.
Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it
should be part of contract negotiations. I'd be interested in hearing
about other organizations that are involved in line management and
operations, that use such an inefficient management model.
The complexities and subtleties of this domain (pun intended) make it
rather easy to have implications that are difficult to understand. That
does not mean they are not present. I suggested one possibility, in terms
of legal defensibility of the current contract. I'm not an attorney and
have no idea whether my legal theory has any merit; however it does make
sense that this could be an implication. And it would fully explain why
Verisign would agree to the proposed contract.
Vany's suggestion, after the NC meeting, at least seeks to provide
constructive input before the deadline. I hope that her suggestion is pursued.
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
>>>
|