Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all remaining assembly members,

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 07:34 AM 3/9/2001, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >I agree that's nothing wrong in having Joe as counsel, as it would
> >not be wrong to have NC and DNSO as counsel.
>
> Siegfried,
>
> There is a very large difference between interacting with an individual and
> interacting with a group.

  What???  Your kidding right?

>
>
> This was made abundantly clear during today's Names Council meeting in
> Melbourne.
>
> The Names Council spent all of its time complaining about the process and
> timing of the proposed new Verisign contract.  They spent no time at all
> considering the actual merits of the proposal.

  First of all that is not how I read it.  Second, process is at least as
important
as substance, for without a good process, good substance cannot be
adequately dealt with....

>
>
> Hence they chose to provide no constructive input to the ICANN Board.

  Your opinion of course.  ANd maybe even the ICANN BoD's opinion.
However that does not necessarily have anything to do with accuracy or
relevancy....

>
>
>  From an individual staff consultant, such dereliction of duty would not be
> tolerated.

  Well we all know that Tolerance is not one of the ICANN BoD's strong
suits...

>
>
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
>
> Because the current contract grossly favors Verisign, to the detriment of
> the community.  As you cite the greatly reduced price for a registration,
> such as the excellent price from your own joker.com (that I have used
> multiple times) let us note that the registry price is still a factor of
> 3-6 times higher than it should be.
>
> Another example of the gross disproportion:  Verisign has 3 TLDs when other
> registries have (will have) only one.

  And this is because the ICANN BoD in MDR made a gross error, that
is not Verisign's fault.

>
>
> A contract which brings Verisign closer -- no doubt not as close as we all
> would like, but still, closer -- to being treated the same as any other
> gTLD registry should be automatically appealing.

  It is.  Your point?

>
>
> We need to be very careful to consider the importance of rejecting the
> proposed contract.  For example, if we reject a proposal that largely
> "regularizes" the arrangement with Verisign, imagine how much stronger
> Verisign's legal position becomes when they need to defend the
> disproportionate advantages they were granted in the current contract.

  ICANN made this contract.  Now they are not happy with it's
provisions.  SO ICANN wants to change the terms of the contract
or let a new contract all together.  That's fine and dandy for ICANN.
But maybe not so fine with Verisign, or the stakeholder community.

>
>
> Let's all try to focus on the real content of the proposed contract, rather
> than being distracted by inevitable imperfections of process.

Again without good process, focus on good content cannot occur....

>
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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