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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 23:00:10 -0500 , you wrote:

>Who are tee NSI representatives you are referencing? When negotiations are
>underway, typically, employees aren't able to provide the kind of comment
>you have suggested.

Mr Gomes had made some useful contributions in the past.  As it
happens I have found the answer to my question.  In their letter to
Vint Cerf Verisign have stated that if ICANN do not agree to the
proposed amendments they would like ICANN to extend that separation
date of 18 May 2001 by a short period.

So we seem to have an easy solution here.  Verisign have already said
they would like an extension if the proposed amendments are not
accepted so they are most unlikely to complain about an extension to
consider the proposed amendments.

DPF

>???
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
>Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:07 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various
>forums, we can as k substantive questions
>
>
>On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:46:33 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:
>
>>> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
>>> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
>>> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.
>>
>>Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple.  Note 
>>that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning 
>>the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.
>
>Well NSI will be gambling with a lot at stake if they refuse to agree
>to a one off 2 month extension to the deadline.  We have
>representatives from NSI here so perhaps they could comment whether as
>a matter of good faith they would be amenable to such an extension so
>that the DNSO can properly consult on the issues raised.
>
>>> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10.  There is nothing at
>>> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
>>> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
>>> to be a Registrar.
>>
>>You have missed something crtically important, I believe.  NSI *will* sell 
>>the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will 
>>effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in 
>>perpetuity.  
>
>No no no.  I have just reread both the original agreement and the
>proposed change.  Under the original agreement NSI only get the
>registry extended until November 2007. Section 22(a) provides that
>there will be a successor registry and 22(b) merely says NSI is not to
>be disadvantaged in tendering for this by virtue of being the
>incumbent.
>
>So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
>entities to remain the registry.  If they can not provide the best
>price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
>
>Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal.  D(4) states that
>there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
>and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.
>
>So in fact it is only if ICANN agrees to these changes that NSI will
>have a presumptive right to *.com in perpetuity.
>
>Now that *may* be a good thing but I'd like more than a few weeks to
>consider things before signing away *.com for ever.
>
>>NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire -- 
>>that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar 
>>has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its 
>>value is problematic.  Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint 
>>Cerf: 
>>
>>    Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
>>    of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
>>    operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
>>    2007. 
>
>Thanks for this.  At the moment though I am seeing lots of benefits
>for NSI - they get to keep being a Registrar plus they gain the rights
>for *.com pretty much for ever.  I am not seeing a lot of benefit for
>the Internet Community.
>
>By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
>competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
>reductions from the current US$6.
>
>>    I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
>>    to its completion.  Under this commitment, on the part of both
>>    parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
>>    Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007. 
>>
>>No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
>>forseeable future.  The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later 
>>on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.
>
>Under the current agreement they can keep all three until 2007 but
>beyond that it is a open slather for who becomes the registry.  Not I
>do like the idea of having *.org and *.net go out to other registries
>earlier which is why I do not want to see the proposal rejected out of
>hand.  But by God I don't want the price to be gifting *.com to NSI
>for ever and ever.
>
>>> But if both parties can see merit in agreeing to a change there should
>>> be no objections to extending the deadline to July 10 to allow ICANN
>>> Board time to consult the DNSO on the policy implications of this.
>>
>>You are overlooking the fact that there are other parties in this who
>>might raise serious objections to the NSI agreement continuing on a 
>>minute past May 10 -- other registrars and potential registries have a 
>>large stake in all this.
>
>They may.  They need to quickly decide what course of action is their
>most preferred option.  I would think that rather than having *.com
>registry locked away for ever and ever they would prefer a 2 month
>extension to existing agreement.
>
>>[...]
>>> >
>>> >The Board *is* consulting with the DNSO.  The time is compressed.  
>>> 
>>> Is it?  Has it formally referred it to the DNSO for a recommendation
>>> as the bylaws state?  Consultation is more than just sticking up a
>>> comments page on a website.
>>
>>Yep, it is.  There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and 
>>if I were you I would be composing it right now.
>
>Can you please (serious request) point to the URL where the Board have
>asked the Names Council for input and where the Names Council have
>asked for input?  Is the GA the preferred form of input or is it the
>web based forum or will there be a dedicated working group discussion
>or should we just e-mail our thoughts to all 19 Names Council members?
>
>>> Yep but I can see no harm by a simple agreement delaying the 10 May
>>> deadline to 10 July.  It would be in the interests of both NSI and
>>> ICANN.
>>
>>There is no such thing as a simple agreement when the stakes are as high
>>as they are.  It might be possible to negotiate something, but on the
>>other hand, it might not. 
>
>Indeed but I would like to see ICANN at least try and report if they
>can.  This in itself could affect how people vote on whether to accept
>the staff proposal.
>
>DPF
>--
>david@farrar.com
>ICQ 29964527

--
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