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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Jefsey and all remaining assembly members,

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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).

  God points here Jefsey.  And they are not outside the realm of
probability given the ICANN BoD's history thus far.  However I
did not mention the $200m in my comments below, to which you
are responding to here.  However, I will be responding to Chuck
Goomes post from yesterday in that regard later after getting
some more input from our members and legal staff...

>
>
> This would lead to think that the standard gTLD agreement
> has been designed with this plan in view.

  Not necessarily, but very possibly...

> 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.

  I think you are beginning ot understand...  >;)

>
>
> 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.

  Indeed.

>
>
> 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@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-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