RE: [ga] New contracts

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2001 13:57:40 -0000, you wrote:

>Following discussion today, it is clear that concern about the proposed
>Verising/Icann contract extends well beyond the Registrars Constituency.  I
>understand concerns were expressed by Gov representatives on the GAC and
>that the GA list is similarly concerned.  This is one issue where there
>appear to be a fair liklihood of achieving consensus supporting the 1999
>agreement!

This is good to hear.  I think it is important to note that most of us
are not resistant to change, but that before ditching the status quo
there needs to be much much better justification of the proposal and
thorough examination of the potentials gains and losses for all
affected stake holders.

Personally I believe there is *some* merit in the proposal and it
would be nice to see if we can spin off *.org and *.net early.
However as it stands the asking price is far too high.  If Verisign
and ICANN are not pig headed about it and agree to a 2 or 3 month
extension to existing deadline then a compromise may be achievable.
However if they insist on an all or nothing approach, I believe there
is no mandate to move away from the status quo.

DPF

David and all remaining members,

Worst Case Scenario: The BoD approves the new contract and, as a direct
result, a significant policy change is made without proper consideration
having been given to either a) input from DNSO or b) concerns expressed by
the GAC.

Question: Can the GAC and DNSO then appeal/ reverse the decision under any
circumstances?

The point is, that while 11th hour comments to an 11th hour proposal can be
effective, this seems to involve communicating directly with the decision
makers in an informal way, which is no substitute for formal process. I
question whether it is necessary to play games instigated by ICANN staff and
to follow their rules in a situation where perfectly good Bylaws already
exist to deal with this matter in an orderly manner.

It could be that the answer is for the GA to ignore ICANN staff priorities
on this particular issue and proceed by putting the ICANN BoD on formal
Notice that DNSO seeks to enforce a consultation period regarding the new
contracts. Furthermore, that if a reasonable opportunity for consultation is
denied, as is both desirable and necessary, then any contract entered into
by ICANN with Verisign/NSI could be viewed as premature and ill-considered
and consequently may be invalidated at a later date by due process, using
the full force of ICANN's Bylaws and the GAC.

Added to that, it might be worth the GA self-organizing a small WG of all
members posting on this topic within the past 7 days, ensuring diversity by
involving at least one member from each constituency, together with
interested persons from the GA list. It should be possible for the NC to
endorse such a proposal well within stated deadlines.

In the meantime, I agree the status quo should remain, since this is the
only option that does not involve ICANN in a major policy change, whatever
the merits of the new contract may ultimately prove to be.

Sincerely,
Joanna Lane

--
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