RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

This proposed deal has two structural aspects:
- one seems to be in the best interest of Verisign. We discuss it.
- the other is hidden by the first one. It is IMHO the most important one. 
It is in the best interest of the Staff, not necessarily in the best 
interest of the majority of the Board. It supports the concept of ICANN 
being an autocractic ruler of the name space, a "taker away" rather than a 
servant of the Community.

This contract decides of the future of the ".org" mission and gives only 
one year to hundred of thousands of questionned ".org" holders to get out. 
The "take away" policy initiatied in MDR against the 5.000 ".biz" existing 
holders (through the devolution of existing ".biz" to JVStream) and the 
ccTLD managers (through the letter to Governments) is applied here on a 
broader scope.

I just wander if this .org refocussing has been discussed anywhere. If this 
is just legal and feasible to force a DN holder out of its DN holdership. 
There will probably be thousands of legal actions against the iCANN which 
could resist only with the strong support of the USG and of the GAC. I just 
wander if the Verisign contract is not just a screen of smoke and the 
".org" charter enforcement not a way to trap the USG into supporting iCANN 
and forcing the GAC to accept the power of the iCANN: in several countries 
such a move is probably illegal, may be anti-constitutional (Chile?).

We saw some US allies pursuing that type of policy with some success in the 
past. I start beeing realy worried at the GAC/Staff relations as it 
develops. I am quite concerned by the "market monopoly enforcement theory" 
that some have proposed:

Obviously this is just a concern ....

Jefsey


On 12:40 12/03/01, Peter de Blanc said:
>Colleagues-
>
>Speaking personally the (new) deal may have some merits. Of course, any deal
>that took months to negotiate can hardly be reviewed in a few days. I
>disagree with the "throw away" remark "There is never enough time"
>
>Speaking as a NC member (ccTLD), we have an obligation to advise the BoD on
>policy. No matter what anyone else has said, in my opinion there is a policy
>shift here. Again, I am not saying it is a "bad deal", just that it is
>clearly a policy shift.
>
>Process is important, especially in these days of intense ICANN scrutiny.
>
>Therefore, I will argue for an extension of 30 days, which, I am sure if
>VSGN and ICANN agreed on, would be accepted by US DOC.
>
>That would provide a short, but reasonable time to evaluate, discuss with
>our constituencies, provide inputs to the BoD, and respect the ICANN
>process.
>
>Assuming the outcome of the advice was to go with the new deal rather than
>maintaining the "automatic status quo" of the existing deal, there would be
>an opportunity for the larger Internet community to "buy into" the benefits
>of the new deal. This action would vaildate the legitimacy of the ICANN
>process, instead of destroying it.
>
>Assuming the outcome of the advice was to retain the status quo, I can not
>see that another 30 days delay in the implimentation could possibly have a
>great downside.
>
>peter de Blanc
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of DPF
>Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 12:57 AM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
>
>
>On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 11:06:14 +1100, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially
> >easy to put forward many complaints.
>
>Yes it is but it is also trivially easy to judge if complaints are
>trivial or have real substance.  IMO what has correctly been described
>as proposed major policy reversals without time to consult is not
>trivial.
>
> >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.
>
>As I said elsewhere they do not have a mandate to make up policy on
>the spot on their own.  their role is to seek consensus.  I'm suer as
>individuals they had many views on the proposals.
>
> >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.
>
>This over-states the issue.  No-one suggests a committee should
>negotiate a contract.  However it is usual for such negotiations to
>take place within an approved framework or upon request from a Board.
>
>This proposal was not requested by the DNSO or the ICANN BoD.  At no
>stage did the staff seek Board or DNSO input as to what is or is not
>acceptable to negotiate.  If they had then it might well be possible
>to quickly endorse such a contract, but by failing to get any
>negotiating framework it is little surprise that there are objections
>from those elected to policy bodies.
>
>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

--
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