Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

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

Eric and all remaining assembly members,

edierker@hi-tek.com wrote:

> The perception of improper conduct is just that; a perception.  There remains a lot
> of work to do in order to get this assembly into a position to give the staff
> positive and coninuos feedback on thier actions.  A properly working GA can have
> the effect of mitigating this kind of problem.  Timing and forwarning are critical
> and from my observations, while no one will admit it, "staff" has learned a
> valuable lesson that i idealistcally hope they will learn from and change.  The NC
> may not be all we want yet but they are bright and protective of what the perceive
> as their dominion.

  Agreed Eric, the perception is just that, a perception.  Yet I believe it
is an accurate one none the less.  Feedback should be both positive and negative
where appropriate.  Not ONLY positive as you seem to be indicating here.
Anything less than this is more along the lines of "Painting a Rosy Picture"
that may or may not exist.  That would be both unwise, and not in the
best interest of the stakeholders.

>
>
> ---- Original Message ----
>
> Jonathan and all remaining assembly members,
>
>   Agreed.  However many of us saw this a few weeks back now.
>
> Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> > At 03:00 AM 3/12/2001 +0100, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > >Personally, I prefer the old contract.
> > >I believe that the separation between Registrar and Registry (or, rather,
> > >to keep the principle of the separation) will be more beneficial than the
> > >reassignment of .org.
> > >The reassignment of .org is just a matter of "quantity", i.e. it reduces
> > >(of a quantity of which the significancy is doubtful) the overall market
> > >share of Verisign, while the current contract aims at changing the quality
> > >of the presence, i.e. prevent contemporary presence at the Registry and
> > >Registrar level for the same TLD.
> > >This was, BTW, one of the basic principles of the contract, and to abandon
> > >this is a major change that has to be discussed.
> >  >[snip]
> >
> >          I believe that the proposed revisions cannot be approved by April
> > 1 if there is to be anything left of the notion that ICANN is a bottom-up
> > organization.  But if I were to speak to the merits, I would agree with
> > Roberto.  One of the reasons that the proposals have so conspicuously
> > failed to win community support is that the arguments made in their favor
> > are so implausible.  Maintaining the .com and .net registries together with
> > the dominant registrar has plain anticompetitive potential; the fact that
> > there are now independent registrars with their own market share is not
> > itself a reason to abandon a procompetitive divestiture.  ICANN staff have
> > urged that the benefit to this transaction lies in making the Verisign
> > registry contract look like the proposed new TLD registry contracts, but
> > they have not explained why (other than on esthetic grounds) we should view
> > that congruence as overridingly important.  Nor does the procompetitive
> > benefit, if any, of causing Verisign to spin off .org begin to outweigh the
> > disadvantages the contract would bring.
> >
> > Jon
> >

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