[ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

FYI.
Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Love [mailto:james.love@cptech.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 6:34 PM
> To: Joanna Lane
> Subject: Re: Timetable and procedure for vote
>
>
> Joanna,
>
> I think Dan's friendly amendment is a good one.
>
> With regard to the other issues that have been raised,
>
> 1.    I don't think it is a good idea to mention the particular contracts,
> and I prefer the present more general statement, so that we don't get into
> legalistic issues over the current status of a particular contract, which
> may be difficult for people (who vote on this) to assess.
> Similarly there
> was a suggestion to spell out in detail the options that the USG could
> consider in renegotiations, and I would prefer to keep it fairly simple.
>
> 2.  Some have expressed a concern about the word, rebid.  The advantage of
> the word rebid is that people understand what we mean.   The disadvantage
> may be some technical legal imprecision regarding whether the
> term "bid" is
> right to describe how some of these agreements work.   We could substitute
> _new open competition_ for rebid, avoiding terms that may have the wrong
> technical meaning.    (See  below)  I personally think rebid is
> simpler and
> easier to read, but accept also "new open competition" or something else.
>
> 3.  I would prefer to not include Todd Glassey's suggestion that
> we specific
> to "require for perpetude", or that we make reference to the US Federal
> Trade Commission, which currently has no role in DNS, other than
> to lobby to
> whois disclosures.
>
> 4.    I am happy to add at the end the language suggested by Jeanette, in
> the form below, wondering only if it is getting too long.
>
> "The GA also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper, the
> USG made it clear that it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The
> current ICANN structure has proven to be unhelpful in this respect.
> Schedules could not be met and agreements with key stakeholders have not
> been achieved.  An open competition should aim to achieve comprehensive
> privatization and internationalization of DNS services."
>
> 5.   added at the end of Jeannette's last sentence, I would also add,
> "consistent with the need for stability, innovation, competition and
> freedom." if this is appropriate.    Noting that it may be more
> effective to
> keep it shorter, rather than adding new ideas.  On the other hand, maybe
> there is consensus on the new items.  I'm flex on this.    Jamie
>
> This is the modified version:
> =====================
> The GA asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
> for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition
> would address the need to develop an international framework for DNS
> management.  The rationale for asking for a new open competition is that
> ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for
> ICANN, and
> is proposing even further changes. These proposed changes have
> met extensive
> opposition in the Internet community and go even further from the original
> terms of reference. The  new open competition  would allow the DoC to
> consider both the ICANN board proposal for restructuring,  alternatives
> offered by others for managing key Internet resources, and provide for a
> public record of the process for enhanced visibility.  The GA also reminds
> the DoC, that in the Green and the White  Paper, the USG made it
> clear that
> it intends to withdraw from DNS management. The current ICANN
> structure has
> proven to be unhelpful in this respect.  Schedules could not be met and
> agreements with key stakeholders have not been achieved.  An open
> competition should aim to achieve comprehensive privatization and
> internationalization of DNS services, consistent with the need for
> stability, innovation, competition and freedom.
>
> ========================
>
>

--
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