Re: [ga] ICANN fails to obtain necessary approval for VeriSign deal

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

Bruce and all assembly members,

  Thank you for passing this along!  >;)

Bruce James wrote:

>   ICANN fails to obtain necessary approval for VeriSign deal
>
> ICANN's new proposed agreement with VeriSign, Inc. (Symbol VRSN; $57)
> does
> not comply with Department of Commerce's ("DOC") regulations governing
> ICANN
> 's authority to exercise control over the domain name system ("DNS").
> ICANN
> failed to comply with the Clinton Administration's June 1998 White
> Paper's
> consensus and policy requirements. This makes any possible DOC
> reversal of
> VeriSign's divestiture requirement subject to rule making laws. It may
> also
> adversely affect the on-going Senate and General Accounting Office
> investigations concerning the Clinton administration's failure to
> comply
> with Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") in conditionally
> contracting with
> ICANN to regulate the DNS. We believe the new agreement merits
> rejection
> because it is anti-competitive and unnecessary. However, these
> failures make
> VeriSign's "rubber stamp" approval expectations baseless.
>
> ICANN is a private non-profit California corporation with no statutory
>
> authority to make regulations or to create public policy. ICANN's
> by-laws
> and actions must strictly and uniformly conform to the White Paper's
> Statement of Policy and principles in order to attempt to control the
> DNS
> outside of the APA. ICANN's Board failed to comply with its required
> by-laws. The new VeriSign violates the White Paper's principles.
>
> According to its by-laws, ICANN's Board is required to develop any
> policy
> decisions concerning the DNS through its Domain Name Supporting
> Organization
> ("DNSO"), including the development and approval of the new proposed
> VeriSign agreement. ICANN's by-laws also require that the DNSO seek
> and
> produce a consensus on any DNS policy matters and abide by the DNSO
> consensus. On March 28, 2001 the DNSO notified ICANN's Board that it
> failed
> to provide proper notice and that it opposed the Board's proposal. It
> instructed ICANN's Board not to hold a vote without due process.
> ICANN's
> Board ignored the instructions, and on April 2, 2001 approved the new
> VeriSign agreement.
>
> The DNSO is composed of seven constituency groups, headed by the Names
>
> Council ("NC") and a General Assembly. NC consists of 21 members,
> three
> members from each constituency group. NC has sole authority for
> determining
> DNSO consensus on DNS matters. Both the NC and the General Assembly
> rejected
> VeriSign's proposed deal. Among the DNSO's many ignored concerns is
> its
> opposition to ICANN's "surprise" plan to "abolish VeriSign's
> obligation to
> sell either its registrar or registry businesses" and the proposed new
>
> agreement's "windfall to VeriSign". ICANN's failure to gain a
> consensus and
> its Board's decision to ignore the DNSO's rejection renders its
> approval
> useless to the DOC.
>
> The November 10, 1999 agreement attempts to comply with the White
> Paper's
> "Competition" and "Bottom-Up" basic principles. ICANN's new proposed
> agreement directly violates rather than complies with the
> "Competition"
> principle, and ICANN's Board approval despite DNSO's rejection
> directly
> violates rather than complies with the "Bottom-Up" principle.
>
>
>

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