Re: [ga] Board Decisions

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

  Interesting and somewhat insightful viewpoints here Patrick.
I have a few comments that address some of your perceptions
listed below.  (See my comments below)

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Thursday, March 15, 2001 5:13 PM (local time)
> William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com> wrote:
> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: Board descisions
>
> > So I ask you for the third time, and the second time just this
> > evening, what do you find in this agreement that makes it preferable
> > over the existing one, and how do you see those benefits overweighing
> > the drawbacks that have been addressed here (And ignored by you) ?
>
> Hi William
>
> In Melbourne, I saw two separate presentations made by Joe Sims.  In both of
> these Joe describes both Plans and outlined their advantages and disadvantages
> to ICANN and the community.   Schlavos separately outlined the advantages to
> Verisign of Plan B.
>
> I do not want to make that particular case at the moment (for or against) but
> would like to draw out some aspects for consideration by the list.
>
> Some of the issues included that it would bring Verisign into line with all of
> the new registries.  It would also separate the .com, .net and .org agreements.

  This is where the rub and concerns seem to be.  Is it wise to separate
out these agreements?  And is it, as part of that separation, wise to
separate registry and registrar functions to separate entities for ORG
and Net.

>
> Dates were also shortened and caps removed.  Verisign agreed to provide $5
> million to the new .org operator and $200 million in R&D type funding.  There's
> also the changes to the registry-registrar separation.

  This is fine but there are all kinds of "Games" that can be played with these
funds.  I believe that most stakeholders would like to see these funds
specifically earmarked more exactingly.  As we say in MDR, the process
method used in determining who got the new gTLD's was very questionable
at best.  This is what could be done with .ORG and Net.  But the concern
is mostly with .ORG, and with good reason(s) of which have already been
mentioned on this forum.

>
>
> My feeling was that the most important consideration was that Verisign would
> have a "presumptive right" to renew .com.  Thus if Verisign managed the TLD
> properly, it would be expected for them to continue with .com in perpetuity.

  This could also be a potential problem as well.  Some have complained
in how Verisign/NSI have managed registrations and renewals of DN's
in .COM, as with other registrars and the lack of oversight that ICANN
is suppose to be doing....

>
>
> I would also say that some of the new arrangements were imposed by ICANN staff
> (rather than requested by Verisign) as a trade-off for this presumptive right to
> renew.  This includes the separation into three agreements and the loss of .org
> and the possible loss of .net.

  The question is why is .ORG so important and more important than
.NET to ICANN?

>
>
> It should not be assumed that Verisign wants to "give away" .org.  Rather they
> want to "keep" .com and were prepared to make significant sacrifices to achieve
> that result.

  I find this hard to believe frankly.  It just doesn't make allot ot sense....

>
>
> Personally I believe that .com will be less valuable than people might think
> given the introduction of new TLDs.  However, except for .biz, they are not very
> attractive.  And even .biz is not general purpose because of its apparent focus
> on "business" operations.
>
> For those looking for a "hidden agenda" I would focus on the .com part of the
> deal and ask ICANN when they plan to introduce more TLDs in a genuine
> competitive framework.

  Good point.  And perhaps that until more new TLD's are introduced and
the UDRP is reformed, it would be wiser to wait before spinning off
.ORG and .NET....

>
>
> My view is that it will be another few years yet before the proof of concept is
> seen to be sufficiently well-tested to allow the introduction of more TLDs.

  Maybe yes and maybe no here. This would depend on WHICH gTLD's
are available, how they are marketed, and what will be the results of the
reform of the UDRP.

>
>
>  So Verisign will continue to get a good run with .com for many years to come.

  I disagree here.  Verisign has something else in mind....

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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