Re: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

Joanna - my intent is not to respond negatively to you personally but the
type of language that you are talking about is a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 4:10 PM
Subject: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote


> 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@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