Re[10]: [ga] GA position on Verisign contract

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Dave,

Wednesday, March 28, 2001, 6:33:54 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 03:42 AM 3/28/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>In favour of the change of the charter of .org: 0

> Has anyone noticed that the subject line does not match the focus of 
> discussion?

> That's not a minor matter of bookkeeping.  It underscores a missed opportunity.

> The Verisign contract alternative does not mandate any change in the 
> charter of .org.

> People have spent essentially all of their time arguing about a matter that 
> is not part of the contract consideration and have literally ignored the 
> major features that ARE subject to change by the alternative contract.

You can Kent say that it isn't, but it is clear that it is in fact a
part of the agreement, even if that part is not on paper.

The subject line is very appropriate, since the GA position paper that
was sent did not accurately reflect what the GA members had expressed
as their position on the Verisign Contract with regard to the section
of those comments relating to the .org TLD.

The other areas have been discussed, and you and Kent had been asked
to explain how the other parts of the agreement would result in
something positive FOR THE INTERNET COMMUNITY that would outweigh both
the real and possible negative impacts on the internet community.

We KNOW the benefits to Verisign and ICANN, and few, if any, of us
think that those benefits adequately extend to benefit the internet
community.

If you have a different opinion, please express it and back it up.

Or is this just more of your "tow the ICANN line" that we expect from
you and Kent?

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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