Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 9:06 am -0800 3/14/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 11:29:14AM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
>> I have to say that I agree with Andy and support "option A" - let the
>> original contract stand.
>> What is best for VeriSign's shareholders is not necessarily best for the
>> Internet as a whole.
>
>Of course.  But you seem to be operating under the assumption that
>the interests of vsgn and the interests of the internet community are
>necessarily contradictory.

>This is simply not the case.  The interests of vsgn's stockholders and
>the interests of the internet community have a great deal in common,
>and there are many possibilities for true win-win results.

If a decent contract could be negotiated , yes. But Verisign's
unwillingness to negotiate - it's either option A or B - negates such a
win-win proposition.

That is, unless you consider the previous "negotiations" involving ICANN
staff and Joe Sims. Joe and ICANN have proved time and time again that
they're light years away from having the Internet Community's best
interests at heart.

And Joe seems so keen to have the new contract accepted. I wonder why?

Verisign stockholder? (Via a trust of course)

-- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
--
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