Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - Verisign Contract

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

WXW, Dave and all remaining assembly members,

  It seems obvious to me that there is more here than meets the eye.  Ergo,
the ICANN BoD, and possibly even Verisign, has an ulterior motive
for getting the new contract ratified or approved.  Some obvious pitfalls
are eluded to in the new proposed contract that Louis and Joe seem to
be hell bent on getting approved.  Therefore it seems to me that Dave
Crocker, in an attempt to ingratiate himself with the ICANN BoD
is simply parroting their supposed desires...  An nice bit of politicking,
but it's not going over very well.

  Indeed William is right here, Dave, you need to provide some FACTS
regarding your position rather than just rambling on.  Of course many of
us are oh so familiar with your fixation about FACTS, however you seem to
be much less willing to provide them when requested yourself to do so....

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Dave,
>
> Sunday, March 11, 2001, 5:04:14 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> > My own impression is that the proposed contract embodies a superior set of
> > trade-offs.  It is vastly imperfect, of course, and carries probable
> > downsides, but appears to define a more balanced relationship than the
> > current contract.
>
> Let's examine this,then.
>
> Under the new contract:
> 1.  Verisign gets .com forever (unless they really screw up, since the
> presumption in the future will be to their benefit) and gets to keep
> the #1 domain registrar in the world.
>
> 2. net/org, the 2nd and 3rd largest TLDs (which since the competitive
> registrar system started have seen a tremendous growth rate) would be
> spun off, but with the presumption that they would no longer be
> unrestricted gTLDs, and thus not real competition for .com any longer.
>
> Where is this more balanced than the current contract?
>
> Please specify exactly where you think this is more balanced.
>
> The current contract requires them to spin off the registrar, and lets
> them keep com/net/org for a set period of time, after which they do
> NOT have a presumption of status quo, and so thus they have to
> maintain a high level of performance and service in order to justify
> their keeping the registry.
>
> That sounds a lot more fair and balanced to me, and it also sounds a
> lot more likely to be of benefit to the internet community at large,
> and better espouse the principles of competition in the domain market.
>
> So back up your statements with some facts, please, Dave.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.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

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