Re: [ga] Names Council vote

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

Peter and all remaining assembly members,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Jeff, et all..
>
> I have not been "gotten to" by anyone.

 This is good to hear peter.  >;)  However it perplexes me how if you
are sure you haven't (Which I am not doubting you at all) you voted for
the Option B Verisign contract????  Doesn't make allot of sense...

>
>
> Of course, a domain name is valuable to the holder! what does that have to
> do with my position vis-a-vis ccTLD contributions to ICANN.

  Well the vote you let on the Verisign option B contract is why I am a bit
berplexed....  But to directly answer you question a bit more, the method
in which the ICANN BoD has been handling adding new TLD's would
seem to have a direct barring and effect on ccTLD's future.

>
>
> The ccTLD is asked to pay over 1/3 of the ICANN budget, and at least 100 of
> the ccTLDs, if not 150 ccTLDs have a problem with that now.

  I am not surprised.  They should have.

>
>
> Option "B" means that ccTLDs will pay less money, period. You may wax
> eloquently about the moral implications, but you are not the one that has to
> come up with US $ 1.5 million, and rising each year.

  I am not concerned about the moral aspects as much as the diversity
aspect of option B and it's long term precedent it could and many believe would
set.  Many of these aspects are much more far reaching in terms of
financial long term health of ccTLD's and other registrants in gTLD's.
Many of our members are ccTLD registrants.  As such they are very
disappointed in your position and vote for option B (New Deal) versign/nsi
contract.  They view it as a direct impact on how their DN's will be
effected in various ways.  I have been flooded recently with our members
expressing their concerns.  So much so that we are again considering
that our members contact their specific govt. representatives and the
EU council frequently to express their concerns.

>
>
> Money IS an issue with the majority of my constituents.

  Yes I am sure it is, as it is unfortunately with mine which are in some cases
your constituents as well.

>
>
> I will continue to seek maximum benefits for the majority of my constituency
> members, as long as i am in a position to do so.

  You should.  But our members which a large number are ccTLD registrants
are having a problem with you position on the Option B Verisign/NSI
proposed contract.  Hence my previous post....

>
>
> In a few days, you will see the results of the ccTLD "straw poll", and, rest
> assured, the money issue is at the forefront of many ccTLD's responses.

 How may our members that are ccTLD registrants participate in this
NEW ccTLD Poll?

>
>
> regards
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:02 AM
> To: Eric Dierker
> Cc: Peter de Blanc; ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
>
> Eric and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   I am a little surprised at Peters position here as well.  Seems that maybe
> he has been "Gotten to" by someone?  However given that the DNSO
> Chair has instituted a BAN on my posting to the GAL list inappropriately
> such a possibility is not to far fetched.
>
> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > I am afraid nearsightedness has got the best here.  Some in this world and
> I
> > expect I can include those in the .vi sphere would agree that a domain
> name is
> > something of value to the holder.  I expect your livelihood depends on
> that fact
> > being true and that all ccTLD managers respect that as a truth. Also that
> their
> > jobs are partially a function of maintaining that value and the value of
> the
> > ccTLD to the country.
> > With that said. And I very much respect your monetary acumen, and
> personally
> > felt your pain when scolded about your financial decisions in Melbourne.
> > What you describe below is micro economics and countries are hopefully
> working
> > on macro economics.  But you know this and so I wonder why the need for
> the
> > faulty justification.
> > The agreements you just endorsed are bad for the value of Domain Names as
> a
> > whole for a myriad of reasons. By your actions you have potentially
> damaged the
> > value of every ccTLD for the sake of saving an entry fee.  Not like you
> Mr. de
> > Blanc, what is up?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Peter de Blanc wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking personally, as there was insufficient time to obtain even a
> > > representative straw poll of ccTLDs, I could not support the "blanket
> > > assumption" of that particular resolution, as worded, because I believe
> the
> > > financial impact to ccTLDs.
> > >
> > > Under the current contract, the contributions to ICANN from
> VeriSign/NetSol
> > > are capped at $ 250,000 for the registry and $ 2 million for the
> registrar.
> > > As the iCANN budget increases, (which it will), and the number of
> > > registrations in .com increase, this has the effect of reducing the cost
> per
> > > name to VeriSign, while INCREASING the contribution and cost per name of
> > > ccTLD registries.
> > >
> > > >From a purely financial viewpoint, "option B" will guarantee a decrease
> in
> > > the contributions of ccTLDs to the overall ICANN budget.
> > >
> > > You will note that even though VeriSign insists that there is no "option
> C"
> > > available, I did support the next resolution, where the NC advises the
> board
> > > to request renegotiation of a few points in "option B" in order to
> reflect a
> > > more equitable result, if "option B" is to become a reality.
> > >
> > > Peter de Blanc
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Andy
> > > Gardner
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:56 PM
> > > To: ga@dnso.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Names Council vote
> > >
> > > >"The NC resolves that if forced to choose between the existing
> agreement
> > > >or the revised agreement as written the NC reluctantly chooses the
> > > >existing agreement."
> > > >
> > > >Voting in favor:
> > > >M. Mueller
> > > >Vany Martinez
> > > >YJ Park (proxy to Vany)
> > > >M. Schneider (ISP)
> > > >H. Hotta (ISP - proxy to Schneider)
> > > >P. Sheppard (B&C)
> > > >P. Kane (registrar)
> > > >G. Forsyth (B&C)
> > > >K. Stubbs (registrar)
> > >
> > > That the Registrars voted against the new agreement tends to suggest
> that
> > > they have spotted the anti-competitive nature of it.
> > >
> > > >Voting Against:
> > > >Guillermo (IPCC)
> > > >C. Chicoine (IPCC-proxy to Guillermo)
> > > >R. Cochetti (registry)
> > > >T. Swineheart (B&C)
> > > >P. de Blanc (ccTLD)
> > > >E. Porteneuve (ccTLD)
> > >
> > > The IPCC vote was a given (IPCC=ICANN).
> > >
> > > Interesting to see the ccTLD brigade vote for the new agreement. Do they
> > > see it as detrimental to the growth of the gTLD's, and thus something
> that
> > > might see them with more business?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Andrew P. Gardner
> > > barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> > > We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> > > Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> > > --
> > > 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@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@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

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