Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 18:06 14/03/01 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:55 AM 3/14/2001, DPF wrote:
>>But I find it damn scary that some people could even consider that
>>existing registrants in a TLD would not be grand fathered if there is
>>a policy change.
>
>Indeed, the purpose of floating this particular, inventive interpretation 
>is exactly so that people will be scared.
>
>Being scared is so much easier than focusing on the facts and actual merits 
>(and actual deficiencies) of the alternative contract.
>

Dave,

This is how it is with most political decisions. Most people do not have
the time for a thorough analysis and speak out instinctively to protect
their property or interests.
If they know that there is a  DNSO to advise the ICANN Board of their
concerns, and if they know that there is a proper structure in that DNSO ,
so that their concerns will be brought forward at the NC by representatives
who DO take the time for that analysis, they do not need to be scared. They
know that they *are* ICANN.

As it is now, I cannot blame any .org name holder who is not a
non-commercial incorporated entity to feel worried that his acquired rights
may be sold down the river in order to prop up Verisign's share price, now
probing  bottom.
Even non-commercial entities may be worried that the price of the service
will rise, because of the necessary bureaucracy to weed out everyone else.


I am looking forward to your own analysis. You stated in Melbourne that
both contracts suck (I actually tend to agree) , so we are waiting with
abated breath for your insights. 

If it would help you let me start you off:

1. the competition among TLD registries (improved with new contract?)
2. the loss of USG oversight (to the benefit of registrants?)
3. smoother relations between ICANN and NSI (to the benefit of registrants?)


I have not yet replied to the straw poll, because I am not yet done with my
own analysis. 
>From the tightening up of some clauses, you can actually read Verisign' s
thinking.

What would help soften the opposition to the new deal would be a VERY
unambiguous statement from the ICANN Board, guaranteeing that the current
status quo in .org will not be touched.
The ICANN Board had this opportunity in Melbourne, but did not take it, in
spite of the clamour.
I am really surprised that Ogilvy has not come to the rescue here.







--Joop--
Former bootstrap of the CA/idno
       The Polling Booth 
www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/

--
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