Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 07:48 15/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:11:27 +1300, you wrote:
>>At 18:33 13/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>>
>>C. The NC report should recommend to the ICANN Board NOT to sign the new
>>agreement prepared and negotiated by the Staff, but, if possible, seek ,
>>with the agreement of the Department of Commerce, an extension of the 10
>>May deadline in order to amend the new  contract with Verisign to achieve
>>better terms for all DNS stakeholders. 
>
>As much as I personally support (c) I do not think it should be
>included as a voting option.  The staff and Verisign have made 100%
>clear that it is (A) or (b) only and we risk diluting the results by
>having a third option which has been ruled out.  If people do opt for
>the status quo then perhaps there may be future opportunities to look
>at enhancements but this is unknown.
>

As Dave Crocker said in Melbourne: both contracts have their drawbacks
("suck") 
Many of us here may share that opinion.

I see DFP's point, but I still think that an overwhelming desire emanating
from the GA or the constituencies to let "their" ICANN Board attempt to
renegotiate the deal should be conveyed as part of the information that
goes to the Board, even if it is probably not going to fly.

Roberto, as Chair, could you please make a ruling on the voting options at
some point during the next week?

Should option C (re-open negotiations) be included in a single set of
options or should it be part of a sub-option that reads: 
"In case there would a possibility for the Board to re-negotiate the
Verisign contract then my preference would be 
A. , B ,  or C",
while the main option reads: "Assuming that no re-negotiations is possible,
my preference is A,  or B." ?


>>Ideally  each constituency should vote separately on these options, so that
>>the outcome for the diverse results can be reflected in the NC report to
>>the Board.
>
>Indeed.  It would be very useful for each constituency to take a vote
>on which of the two contracts they believes most benefits the Internet
>community, as well as the GA taking a vote.
>
The NCDNHC is already gearing up for a vote, I understand.

For the constituencies present in the GA it would be possible to enter
voting options as specifically intended for each constituency voter.
Like: "I(S)P constituency vote here" , "registrar constituency vote here",
etc.

With web-based voting this can be easily done. In this way, the GA can take
the lead, for the benefit of some constituencies that may not get their act
together in time.

--Joop


--
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