Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> ...and that it makes this concession with little apparent
> countervailing benefit.

I've come to a similar conclusion.

One thing that might tip the scales though is to know more specifics about
problems under the original agreement that will be cured in the new drafts.
We now have 18 months of experience, what are the problems?

In his presentation yesterday, Joe Sims mentioned some unstated
disadvantages of the previous agreement. There was a point when he described
the Nov. 1999 agreements as including some provisions that were open to
interpretation. According to Sims, the new agreements clear up those
ambiguities. From his tone, I understood that the problems were potentially
serious and possibly a source for future litigation. I thought that
Register.com's Richard Forman echoed the existence of these unstated
problems with the Nov. 1999 agreement when he spoke.

Unfortunately, no one who discussed the problems in the Nov. 1999 agreement
noted specifically what the problems were. I'd really appreciate hearing
something more about that. If there are ambiguities in the 1999 contracts
that are apparent now with 18 months of experience and that may pose
problems either now or in the future, that would be a significant factor
weighing in favor of the new arrangement.

        -- Bret

--
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