RE: [ga] New contracts

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

That letter simply indicated that an extension would be required if a
decision on the proposed agreements was not made with adequate lead time.
It did not say that VeriSign wanted an extension.  Stratton Sclavos in
yesterday's open forum clearly said that in his fiduciary responsibility to
could not delay this issue.

Chuck Gomes

-----Original Message-----
From: david@farrar.com [mailto:david@farrar.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 4:18 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] New contracts


> At 08:56 PM 3/7/2001, DPF wrote:
> >NSI/Verisign have already said that they would like an
> >extension.
> 
> That is not what they said in today's Names Council meeting.  They cited 
> the deadline and said that they would implement the requirments from the 
> current contract if the new one was not adopted by then.

I am going off their letter to Vint Cerf which is at 
http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

"We also appreciate your commitment to seek formal Board approval for an 
appropriate extension of the time under the existing agreement should 
compliance with Section 23 be necessary."

DPF

--
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
--
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