[ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

As I have reread the original contract, and the FAQs, I think there is great
validity that there is considerable vagueness in the original agreement and
that there is much opportunity for disagreement and different
interpretations between ICANN staff and  Versign/NSI.  I recall how hard it
was to negotiate this agreement, though, and while I was aware of that
vagueness at the time (since I commented extensively on it), there were many
improvements made to it, and I believe it was the best that could be done.

My point here: If option B gives less vagueness and more certainty in
dealing with Verisign/NSI, then that could be a very good change.   

I have found the continued updates/FAQs helpful.  Thanks to the staff for
doing those.  Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:16 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Option A -- "Divestiture'


On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 05:05:29PM +1200, DPF wrote:
[...]
> 
> >Whatever your extensive experience with proper staff functions, the 
> >analysis provided by ICANN staff is actually quite professional.  It
labels 
> >opinions as opinions.  It analyses contract language and describes
specific 
> >obligations and lack of obligations, in terms of common expectation about

> >Verisign.
> 
> The analysis is extremely slanted, ignores many negative attributes,
> glosses over others and puts the most unfavourable interpretation on
> the existing contract.

That is, it doesn't favor your interpretation.

> Also who asked for the staff to do this lobbying?  Did the Board ask
> the staff to do this?

Wouldn't be at all surprised.  Vint Cerf, Chairman of the Board,
obviously has supported these agreements, in case you haven't noticed.  
If you were a staff member, and the chair of the board asked you to do 
something, would you do it?

> >Staff are not expected to be machines; professional analysis had better 
> >include professional opinions.
> 
> Conclusions such as that Verisign would be unbeatable to retain the
> registries under the existing contract are highly inappropriate for
> staff to make.

The "staff" includes Louis Touton, General Counsel for the corporation. 
Contrary to your assertion, it is his *job* to offer his best opinion as
to the meaning of the various clauses in the contract.  That is
precisely why people hire lawyers, after all.  This goes for other staff
members -- Andrew is a policy analyst; it is his job to give his
opinion, as well.

You are unhappy that the staff analysis doesn't support your point of 
view -- that's understandable.  But you have descended into personal 
attacks, and that's not so good.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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