RE: [ga] New contracts

[david@farrar.com]

Chuck Gomes wrote:
> 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.

I'm not trying to be the anti-NSI/Verisign guy here (I have no antipathy 
towards the company, just a natural dislike of monopoly situations) but if 
Verisign is going to play hardball and refuse to give the DNSO a chance for 
proper consultation, then why should ICANN be looking at such an extension.

I am tempted to say that we have a very clear legal agreement with Verisign at 
present and that says they must divest their Registrar business by 18 May or 
their registry contract runs out in 2003.  Notwithstanding any hopes they may 
have as to ICANN may agree to something different, they have an obligation to 
be ready by 18 May.  If Verisign wish to gamble on what the Board may do, that 
is up to them, but if by 18 May they still have a registrar business then they 
have lost the right to remain as registry - why should ICANN grant an extension 
when it favours Verisign, when Verisign will not grant an extension to help 
ICANN and DNSO?

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