Re: [ga] Small question

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:14 AM (AEST)
Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:


> On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:17:51PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it
> > before?
>
> You haven't heard about it before because you weren't here when the
> agreements were signed.  There was a great deal of discussion about the
> NSI agreement when it occured -- one might go far as to say that there
> was a great deal of resentment that it was such a sweet deal for NSI.
> But NSI held numerous good cards in the negotiation.

Sorry, did I miss something?  Were you part of the negotiating team?
Or otherwise present when the agreements were signed?

> > Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand
> > and iCANN correction?
>
> Hard to say why VRSN proposed a change, but it is not unusual for a
> business to pursue things that they think will be advantageous to them.
> Clearly, ICANN didn't "demand" a change because they have no legal
> grounds to support such an action.  The nature of a contract is that
> *both* parties must agree.  Only if NSI gave them an opening could they
> try to negotiate a better result.

You're not making sense here, Kent.  If a contract is between two parties, why
would one be more constrained than the other?  Verisign proposed the change
because they wanted the presumptive right to keep dot COM.  The ICANN staff
negotiated what they felt were better terms.

I think you will find that Verisign felt they would not "trade off" any further.

Regards
Patrick Corliss













--
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