Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions

[David Farrar <david@farrar.com>]

On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:33:23 -0500 , you wrote:

>
>I am confused about the angst here... it appears at least one or two of
>these items posted by ICANN will be just reports.  But the larger items, the
>TLDs and the Verisign/NSI contract are posted, I believe, not as action
>items, but so they can be discussed, and public (and written comments)
>taken.  

But the NSI contract we are told *must* be approved by 1 April.  This
still gives very little time even if the decision is not made until 1
April rather than at ICANN Melbourne.

>The Verisign/NSI contract isn't a policy issue, per se, as far as I
>can tell, although the implications of the outcome are important for the
>Internet stakeholders/community.   Which is why it is posted.  

I believe it is clearly a policy issue.  Current policy is that the
*.com registry must eventually have a separate ownership to any *.com
registrars.  The proposed contract which comes out of the blue to the
public overturns that policy.  I also point out that this is not a
minor policy but one of the long-standing issues which actually led to
the creation of ICANN - proper competition in *.com.

If the Board does not consult the DNSO on these issues, then really
why bother having one.  What I believe is the sensible way forward is
for the Board at Melbourne to refer the policy implications of the
proposed contract to the DNSO for a recommendation, giving them say a
three month deadline to consult and try and achieve consensus on.

>Look, I feel a little overburdened by the reading, which I don't expect to
>be "light". But ICANN, and all of us are trying to do our best. And these
>documents are obviously complicated, and take time.  

Which is why it is not acceptable for an issue of this magnitude to
try and be pushed through in less than a month.  

>I recommend that the priority be ensuring, in a civil and organized manner,
>that there is ample opportunity, in the GA, in the public forum, and if
>possible/OR useful, in the Constituencies, to hear a short summary of the
>status, and ask questions, related to both the TLDs and the Verisign/NSI
>contract.  I think that is what is proposed.

Certainly those at Melbourne should discuss this and ask questions.
But this should not be a substitute for formal referral to the DNSO
for consideration as outlined in the bylaws.

A contract which will bind ICANN to things for 7 - 10 years should not
be rushed through in a month.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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