Re: [ga] Why no sanctions?/Compromise

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Chuck,

I know this is supposed to be a consensus based group but a word of caution.

Even suggesting compromise around a group of people that have at their center of
training/education in
engineering is like the N word in the OJ trial.  The last time I saw anything
close around here was when
Roberto engineered the list rules compromise, and that left half of the group
leaving for good.

You can attack anyone personally but suggest compromise and you are dead meat.
And I would not have it any other way, I don't want these folks building
compromised systems ;-}

By the way it looks to me that Verisgn should have thrown in a couple of
"sanction" bucks as a compromise to public opinion, you guys need some work in
that area. Watch how Gates does it and all it does is help him.

Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> Danny,
>
> Not only was there any willful violation, it is my opinion that there was no
> violation at all.  That is where ICANN and VeriSign disagree.  Therefore,
> rather than prolonging a dispute that would have negatively impacted our
> customers, we worked with ICANN to modify the promotion in a way that we
> believe is in the best interests of all parties involved.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 10:34 PM
> > To: lynn@icann.org
> > Cc: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: [ga] Why no sanctions?
> >
> >
> > Having read the Advisory Concerning VeriSign Global Registry
> > Services'
> > ".com/.net Promotion" cited at
> > http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-12dec01.htm I
> > have the following
> > question:
> >
> > Why did ICANN choose to issue an Advisory rather than a
> > Finding of Violation
> > of Appendix I (Registry Code of Conduct) under the Sanctions program
> > (appendix Y)?
> >
> > The advisory states:  "VGRS did not provide the required
> > prior notice to
> > ICANN of changes in its registry prices that is required by
> > the .com and .net
> > Registry Agreements, nor did it give notice and seek approval for the
> > additional terms under which registrations are provided
> > through the program."
> >
> > It goes on to state:  "after consultation with ICANN, VGRS
> > has agreed to
> > modify its program to establish a calculation mechanism that
> > incorporates a
> > fixed participation fee and a placement fee based on a series
> > of seven
> > different performance levels, ranging from a 5% increase to a
> > 120% increase
> > over the baseline performance."
> >
> > Are we now negotiating and arriving at compromises with those
> > that willfully
> > violate the rules instead of laying down the law and imposing
> > sanctions?
> > Perhaps Staff could comment on why "ICANN believes that this
> > accommodation is
> > the best outcome in the current circumstances."  Will this
> > become Standard
> > Operating Procedure?  If so, every registry will feel
> > comfortable breaking
> > any rules knowing that they then will have the opportunity to
> > negotiate
> > should they ever get caught.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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-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