Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net>]

>>>Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.

Chuck Gomes<<

Chuck:

    I am happy that VeriSign is on that track. I believe it is in ICANN's
best interest to stay with the current contract at this time.

/Bruce James


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
To: "'Andy Gardner'" <andy@navigator.co.nz>; "vint cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>;
"Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>; "Gomes, Chuck"
<cgomes@verisign.com>; <dhc2@dcrocker.net>; <patrick@stealthgeeks.net>
Cc: <weinberg@mail.msen.com>; <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>; <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>;
<ga@dnso.org>; <ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org>; <core@corenic.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions


It is my understanding that the reason for a late start in the negotiations
of a new agreement had to do with the fact that there did not seem to be any
realistic chance of accomplishing such a task.  There was not to my
knowledge any intential effort to delay the process.  In fact, delaying it
had very negative consequences for us in the investment community.  The
sooner there is clarity in this regard the better for us.

Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Gardner [mailto:andy@navigator.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 7:15 AM
To: vint cerf; Roberto Gaetano; cgomes@verisign.com; dhc2@dcrocker.net;
patrick@stealthgeeks.net
Cc: weinberg@mail.msen.com; 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; 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; ga@dnso.org;
ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org; core@corenic.org
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions


At 3:12 pm -0500 3/13/01, vint cerf wrote:
>Roberto,
>
>you have the right question: is the new proposal any better than the
default?
>
>As to the time frame, it is not entirely of our choosing. ICANN and
VeriSign
>began discussing an alternative to the current contract language rather
late
>in the game and the various deadlines dictate the time we have to make the
>choice.

1. Verisign started negotiations late, because that suited its purpose.

2. Verisign is refusing to extend the original contract, because that suits
its purpose.

3. ICANN's answer should be "you waited too long, so the original contract
stands".

End of story.

--
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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