Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_chair@hotmail.com>]

Dave Crocker wrote:

>
>It is the failure to consider the actual merits of the proposed contract,
>in contrast with the one already in place, that so thoroughly underscores
>the LACK of propriety in the Names Council discussion.
>
>There is never enough time.  There are always constraints.  It is trivially
>easy to put forward many complaints.
>
>The hard work is in living in the reality of this world and trying to be
>constructive.  The Names Council chose to waste its time complaining.
>
>Even more fascinating is the implication that the Names Council believes it
>should be part of contract negotiations.  I'd be interested in hearing
>about other organizations that are involved in line management and
>operations, that use such an inefficient management model.

My understanding of the NC decision is different: they did never say that 
they wanted to be part of the negotiation, they only objected that this 
contract implies a major shift from the current policy/assumptions (i.e. the 
separation between Registrar and Registry) time was needed *not* to discuss 
the contract, but the policy change implications thereof.

In fact, the NC never touched the merit of the contract itself (and 
correctly so, IMHO).

Incidentally, I may misinterptret your post, but I understand from the first 
sentence that you complain that the NC did don enter in the merit of the 
proposal, and in the third you complain that the NC wants to discuss the 
contract.

The NC's role is *not* to discuss the details of the proposal, but to raise 
the flag if there are changes in the policy issues involved.
And this they did.

Regards
Roberto

>it
>rather easy to have implications that are difficult to understand.  That
>does not mean they are not present.  I suggested one possibility, in terms
>of legal defensibility of the current contract.  I'm not an attorney and
>have no idea whether my legal theory has any merit; however it does make
>sense that this could be an implication.  And it would fully explain why
>Verisign would agree to the proposed contract.
>
>Vany's suggestion, after the NC meeting, at least seeks to provide
>constructive input before the deadline.  I hope that her suggestion is 
>pursued.
>
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

--
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