Re: Special Attention Vinton Cerf to:Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Patrick and Jeff,
We are here at a time when the whole future of the internet is
really at stake. Positions taken today will certainly have a final
impact on the people, the companies, the technologies (through
the M$ 200 R&D) DNS development, access costs,and therefore
on business alliances and corporations survivals. If I judge from
the Chinese case: also on international policies.

On 07:50 19/03/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Patrick and all remaining assembly members,
>It seems from this article that Vint Cerf is either ignoring the vast majority
>of comments regarding these "Options" or he has a reading impairment
>problem...  I wonder which one it is???

Jeff, there is also the possibhilty that Vint is playing tricky fox
with them all, as he did for ".web". Would he do it or not, our interest
is that people do not know, and that he may claim that he is under vox
populi's pressure.

>Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > ICANN defers VeriSign decision
> > By Stephen Withers, ZDNet Australia
> > 13 March 2001
> > These comments can be lodged through ICANN's Web site or sent to
> > touton@icann.org until March 31.

Looks like our only to interfaces are Chuck Gomes and Louis Touton.
I am not sure which one is the Internet Community best ally?

> > The board's discussion today suggested the weight of opinion favours 
> "Option B".

Weight in term of stakeholder number, country Govs or added bucks?

> > As happened at the public forum, most of the concerns expressed seemed 
> to be
> > about due process, rather than either of the options facing the board.
> >
> > "My view is that [Option B] is an improvement and a benefit," said 
> Cerf, shortly
> > before he left the meeting prior to the close of business.

May be Vint's list of con and pros would be more convincing than
this view. "Prior to the close of business" might be an appropriate
formula for many.

> > Following the discussion, Elliot Noss, president and CEO of registrar 
> Tucows,
> > said "This deal [Option B] is much preferred to the previous deal," 
> although
> > ICANN had missed "an opportunity to get concessions that would have 
> been good

We need all the elements to be put on the table.
I wish to know when press quotes one Registrar against the
others or one stakeholder in favor of VeriSign, who is what,
who is related to SAIC/VeriSign.

Would some one know the Registrars group enough to either
describe or ask one of them to describe the economic links
between the field players?

Talking of feeling, mine is that we head towards a huge anti-trust
international case in the years to come. But in in the meanwhile
and during its legal and international resolution the Internet will
suffer instability and development delays. This will also affect the
credibility of the iCANN or kill it. I would not bother would the IP
addressing plan not to be at stake. It will also affect SAIC/VeriSign,
and we have no more reason to see them hurt than we have to be
hurt by them.

This to say that we have all the elements to properly advise
the Board and report to the press. Chuck Gomes is obviously trying
to help: but the take it or leave it attitude from VeriSign does not help
him and does not help us.

Jefsey

--
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