Re: [ga] Re: Board decisions - Verisign contract and $200M post offer...

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

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> VeriSign proposed the idea of committing to an investment of $200m over 10
> years if the agreement was successfully renegotiated.

  My first comment here and one that is shared with most of our members
as well is, "Lets see ghe color of Verisigns Money on this one".  Has
Verisign put up any earnest moneys related to this $200m in this context
to date?  If not, than this financial consideration is just talk...

  $200M is not a small amount of money, even for verisign.  And a long
term commitment of $200m over 10 years, is $20m per year.  Lets see
the first $20m in a joint Escrow account.

  Our members and our CFO suggested to me, and I agree that this proposed
$200M should be put in a trust account where the terms of the trust specify
very specifically how this money can be used..   I think this should also
be outlined in the New contract.  Otherwise this proposed $200M over
10 years would just be a big slush fund and it's use could be for just
about anything.   Looks more like a bribe than anything else at this
point....

> ICANN then proposed
> new terms and negotiations started.  Recognizing that I was not directly
> involved in the negotiations, it appears to me that the terms proposed by
> ICANN were basically the terms in the new gTLD agreements.  I conclude this
> because the new .net and .org agreements are almost identical to the new
> gTLD agreements.

  I don't think this is all that important or even all that relevant...
Different
contracts with different terms for TLD's should not be a consideration...

>
>
> So the short answer is: ICANN proposed the terms of the new agreement after
> VeriSign suggested the possibility of the investment.  Joe Sims confirmed
> this in Melbourne.

  I am sure Joe Sims eyes lit up when he first heard of the $200M!  >;)
That kind of money tends to be a very persuasive influence, to be sure...

>
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:04 AM
> To: Bruce James; Gomes, Chuck; 'Andy Gardner'; vint cerf; Roberto
> Gaetano; dhc2@dcrocker.net; patrick@stealthgeeks.net
> Cc: weinberg@mail.msen.com; svl@nrw.net; apisan@servidor.unam.mx;
> Amadeu@nominalia.com; karl@CaveBear.com; jcohen@shapirocohen.com;
> phil.davidson@bt.com; f.fitzsimmons@att.net; ken.fockler@sympatico.ca;
> mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com; hans@icann.org; shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr;
> andy@ccc.de; junsec@wide.ad.jp; quaynor@ghana.com; roberts@icann.org;
> helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de; linda@icann.org; ga@dnso.org;
> ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org; core@corenic.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Board decisions
>
> >>>Keep in mind, we were pursuing a path of complying with the existing
> agreement and were very close to finalizing tasks related to that.
>
> Chuck Gomes<<
>
> Hello Chuck,
> This new contract did not present itself. Somebody proposed it. Who was that
> exactly ?
> Joanna
>
> --
> 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

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