[ga] Report from the discussion

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Folks,

I am preparing a summary of the discussion, as I promised to Philip, the NC 
Chair.

I will say that, after thorough discussion, the GA has shown rough consensus 
in favour to option A, i.e. to keep the current contract.
I will obviously quote the figures from the poll (the logical equivalent of 
the "show of hands" at a physical meeting), as already done in a previous 
post.

The reasons for the choice, as expressed by some participants, are mainly:
- "horizontal" separation between Registrar and Registry, foreseen in option 
A, is perceived as a better deal than "vertical" separation among TLDs, and 
a better safeguard against a monopolistic position;
- the switchover to option B is perceived as a change in policy, done 
without previous consultation of the DNSO (whose mission is to provide 
recommandations on policy), and moreover within very strict deadlines, 
absolutely inappropriate to evaluate in depth the implications of such 
change. For instance, some of the details of the new proposal, like some 
attachments, are still unknown as today. Also, this change in policy is 
considered irreversible
- the financial advantages for the Internet community of option B are not 
balancing off the drawbacks above, as it is understood that the investment 
will be done by VeriSign at its discretion, based on a commercial logic that 
is perfectly legitimate but out of the control of the Internet community. 
The benefits for the Internet community are therefore not identifiable at 
this point in time, and it may be even assumed that other competing 
operators might invest comparable amounts of money in the infrastructure as 
well, if granted similar contracts by ICANN
- the other claimed advantage of option B, i.e. a different management of 
.org, is minimal in value if of any value at all, because years of practice 
of uncontrolled sale of names in the TLD originally intended for chartered 
use have irreversibely polluted the namespace. Moreover, a future "cleanup" 
action to restore the original charter is specifically opposed by the GA, 
because it is considered contrary to the legitimate interest of bona-fide 
owners of .org names

I would also incidentally note that a change in the charter of .org could be 
very possible under the current contract, if VeriSign reputes this a *good 
thing*. Probably neither ICANN nor the Internet community would oppose 
enforcement of tighter controls on future registrations in .org even if the 
registry stays in VeriSign hands. Of course, this should be decided by ICANN 
and known to potential investors before the .org registrar part is put on 
sale. I bet though that this will not be done, as the economical value of 
.org, and its sale price, will suffer. ;>)

This is just the report I owe as Chair, and does not preclude in any way 
other actions, like a vote (or a straw poll) on David's comprehensive 
motion, or the presentation of a "minority position" in the form, for 
instance, of Chuck's 10-points document.

Comments welcome.
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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