Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted

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

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  Well Chuck, the problem here is that the "NEw DEal" contract negotiations
should have from the beginning been inclusive of the parties affected or
potentially
affected, or their representatives (DNSO GA, Constituencies, and the @large).
This was not done.  Second, no contract should have been considered prior
to ALL parties effected (Including .ORG and .NET DN holders, especially).
This also was not done.  Third, Verisign/NSI and it seems also the ICANN
BoD and staff, are saying that there are ONLY two choices, the existing
contract, or the "New Deal" contract.  This also is being considered as
NOT EXCEPTABLE as well.

  As a result and the fact that individual DN holders/stakeholders are not
represented within ICANN at this time, the potential claim of any consensus
for either contract is dubious at best, and IMHO not present.

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Roland,
>
> I agree that the .org issues are clearly policy issues that should be
> decided through the DNSO consensus building process.  In the latest FAQs
> posted by ICANN, that is what will happen.  So there certainly does not seem
> to be an end run around that process.  Also, for such a process to be done
> well, it will take a great deal of time.  But I believe  there is nothing in
> the new .org agreement that anyway bypasses or removes any of the .org
> policy control from ICANN or the community in any significant way unless you
> think these requirements do that: the new registry will be a non-profit
> organization, VeriSign cannot be associated with the new registry in any
> way, the new registry needs to begin operation not later than January 1,
> 2003, the new registry will have $5M start-up for operating costs, and the
> new registry will be able to use VeriSign Registry's global resolution and
> distribution facilities.
>
> Chuck
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Roeland Meyer [mailto:rmeyer@mhsc.com]
> Sent:   Saturday, March 24, 2001 5:56 AM
> To:     'Gomes, Chuck'; 'marc@venster.nl'
> Cc:     'ga@dnso.org'
> Subject:        RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted
>
> > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 1:34 PM
>
> > I don't have any way of knowing what the fees might be.
> >
> > I do believe though that it is very difficult to implement
> > restrictions
> > unless there is a way to automate the process.  But if the
> > restrictions must
> > be controlled manually, it won't scale.  If there is a small number of
> > names, scaling is not an issue.  The more the number of names
> > increases the
> > more scaling becomes an issue.
>
> Policies according to the original charter for ORG, are almost impossible to
> maintain automagically. You stated this yourself, years ago. I was one of
> those that agreed. In fact, none of the three charters are maintainable nor
> are they scalable. This argument was made in defense of the accusation made,
> against NSI, for allowing erosion of the com/net/org charters. I recall that
> you put forth a defense for having ORG and NET become the overflow for COM,
> as an NSI practice, at that time. This happened on the DOMAIN-POLICY list,
> before ICANN was formed.
>
> IMNSHO, most of the concern, that I see expressed, comes from a promise to
> redefine, but not having presented the new definition(s). Yet, we are asked
> to accept the new definition, no matter what it is. This is the equivalent
> of buying a pig in a poke-sack. No wonder folks are uneasy about it... duh!
>
> The whole thing looks like an end-run, around the DNSO and the @large. The
> disturbing thing is that is by-passes a great deal of policy discussion and
> removes some policy control from the ICANN.
> --
> 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