[ga] No to Plan B, no to the Staff ruling

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Andy,
this time I fully agree with you.

1) my concern about the ".org" owners was supported by a letter from
     Verisign to Vint Cerf I read somewhere. May be Verisign could copy
     it again. I was surprised to see that the letter was sent to Vint as
     MCI, VP and not as ICANN, Chair. I will try to find it back.

     For this I am against the change.

2) Obviously Staff and Joe Sims know about this for a long. This is
     the WG-Review story again. 30 days or less to comment and
     uncover a consensus.

     This has to stop.

     ICANN is not the Internet ruler. ICANN is the servant of the
     Internet. The majordomo. It is up to us to be the "net keepers"
     and to say "no". That "no" is to the contract which is poor.

     But mainly that "no" is to the Staff's and Joe Sims' methods.

     I understand that VeriSign defends its interests. But I do not
     understand why the ICANN is not defending our interests,
     and I do not see how we can control it. So the only way is to
     stop it. And pray and act to put an end to this policy.

Jefsey

BTW. "Governance" comes from the old french word "gouvernance"
which is the job of the "gouvenante", i.e. the house-keeper. The
true root of "governance" is therefore "net keeping" and not
"world ruling". If this may help... :-)



On 18:28 14/03/01, Andy Gardner said:
>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

--
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