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

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

My apologies - this was obviously an unfinished commentary and re response
was sent back offline as I recall. Again my apologies for burdening the list
with this.

T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "GA List" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Timetable and procedure for vote


> 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@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