Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Jeff,
I did not dare to propose that idea as it is strictly forbiden
by the bylaws and the White Paper. It is to accuse Joe
Sims, Louis Touton, Mike Roberts and Andrew McLauglin
of felony as the natural consequence is that the 200 millions
are to be used to develop common interests to the iCANN
and VeriSign (who will retain .org operations). This purely
means that Stratton is purchasing the Staff and informing
Vint that iCANN does not exist anymore and he may return
to his WorldCom VP job (hence the address).

This would lead to think that the standard gTLD agreement
has been designed with this plan in view. And we are beyond
the establishment notion detailed by DPF, entering an anti
trust case against VeriSign and a manipulation of the GAC
to cover this (the famous "market monopoly" of Kent Crispin,
corresponding to the "market ownership" of VeriSign on ".com".
Also, this would question the way new TLDs were chosen: on
their intrinsic merits or on their merits according such a plan.
We then undesand why ".museum" is great in bringing
culture departments support and a possible ally due to the
lack of experience and size, but "coop" was poor as being
in a certain way big competition.

This is something again I did not dare to think about. But
now you talk about it, I suppose that a non profit no member
Californian association ".ORG Administration and Services
Management" would not be a big investment for the iCANN.
IANA, ICANN, ORG/ASM, mmmhhh .. interesting trio.

Your idea. Not mine :-)
Jefsey



On 13:48 15/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Thomas and all remaining assembly members,
>
>
>   It seems to me that the language here is leaving allot open to
>Consensus determination or some other process by which whom
>will eventually end up with .ORG, should the new "Deal" be
>approved, is not well defined.  I t should be in any GOOD
>Contract of this nature, from what our legal staff is telling
>me.
>
>   Second here, is that it seems to me that ICANN is setting itself
>up to manage .ORG itself.  This would meet the condition of
>a non-profit company managing .ORG.  It also somewhat explains
>the $5m in ICANN's hands and they could do just about anything with
>that money even if another organization is not to become the registry
>for .ORG.  So I would say that ICANN itself will be pocketing the
>$5m for itself and any new registry for .ORG will get nothing or next
>to none of these funds....  In the case that ICANN itself will be the
>registry for .ORG, which is quite conceivable, of course they can than
>justify keeping the $5m to do with as they wish as long as it is for the
>
>.ORG registry of a related function of same....  And as many of you
>know,
>all kinds of games can be played with this; legal consulting fees to
>associate's of Jones & Day, consulting fees to ex-ICANN BoD members
>and staff, and even the justification of creating a CTO position within
>ICANN itself so as to provide a salary for that position to someone that
>
>has been particularly favorable to the ICANN BoD in the past, like
>someone
>with "Operational" experience...  There are several candidates that come
>to mind
>here.  I am sure that many of you know who these people might be as
>well,
>without me naming names....  >;)
>
>   So given the ICANN BoD's track record with handling funding, the
>$5m will not last long even if another non-profit organization is to be
>the NEW Registry for .ORG, and the ICANN BoD determines what
>and how those funds are to be used should this occur.  Kinda slick, huh?
>
>Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > <http://www.icann.org/nsi/proposed-org-registry-agmt-01mar01.htm>:
> >
> >         5.1.4 No later than 90 days prior to the Expiration Date,
> >         Registry Operator will pay to ICANN or ICANN's designee the
> >         sum of US $5 million, to be used by ICANN in it sole
> > >       discretion to establish an endowment to be used to fund
> >                                vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
> > >       future operating costs of the non-profit entity designated
> >                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >         by ICANN as successor operator of the .org registry.
> >         Registry Operator agrees that such funds, once paid to
> >         ICANN, will become the property of ICANN and/or ICANN's
> >         designee, and that Registry Operator will have no ownership
> >         or other rights or interests in such funds or in the manner
> >         in which they are used or disbursed.
> >
> > Maybe some US lawyers here can enlighten us whether or not this
> > clause constructs an obligation for ICANN to assign .org to a
> > non-profit entity after NSI gives it up?
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                 <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> > --
> > 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
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>--
>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