RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
Thank you for your response.

On 13:51 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>I don't recall Kent's specific reference to an endowment but I would think
>he was referring to the fact that VeriSign would place the $5M for the .org
>registry into an endowment fund controlled by ICANN.  See the new .org
>agreement, section 5.1.4.

I was talking about the M$ 200. The M$ 5 are said by Stratton to go to the 
first ORGANIC operation year (I hope a non profit could manage at a lesser 
budget and that the amount would cover a few years).

>With regard to the limited choices (just A or B), there are several reasons
>for this.  I think Ivan Campos (ICANN board member) expressed it as
>succinctly as possible in Melbourne when he pointed out that we already have
>an agreement in place and what has happened is that a new option has been
>put on the table so, if we don't like the new option, we may continue with
>the existing situation.  Stratton also provided some information on this in
>Melbourne when he shared that to drag this issue out longer would
>unnecessarily prolong uncertainty for employees and investors; it is better
>for us to just get a decision and move on.  Besides, it's not clear to me
>that we will know much less come the end of March than we would 60 or 90
>days out; people seem to be doing a thorough job of sorting out the issues
>in the 30 day timeframe.

I was talking about the starting date to better understand who proposed what.

Now you agree that people are quite concerned and do a good job a sorting
out the issues: it would seem faire and clever to me that both iCANN and
VeriSign take advantage from it.

Let understand each other. A good contract is a good contract for all. In 
here, obviously people are first protecting the Internet Community 
immediate interests. But on middle and long term these interests are those 
of VeriSign. Those of the iCANN too, but the iCANN is a too small an 
organization to be really concerned by the middle and long term.

Basically people vote for statu quo. But there are a few points in Statu 
Quo which are negative (like the resale ability on a large scale) and 
points of interests in the Plan B: org by a non-profit (if not the iCANN), 
an M$ 200 endowment (if not use to enforce the "market" monopoly by a 
technical monopoly). These issues should be of real concern now for 
VeriSign: after this discussion enough has been said for VeriSign to better 
measure the people support to an anti-trust possible case. A tri-partite 
agreement including the stakeholders through the DNSO (according to the 
iCANN bylaws) and the Registrars (who should have a Constituency) would be 
IMHO a good warranty for all, starting with VeriSign.

Jefsey





>Chuck
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
>Sent:   Sunday, March 18, 2001 7:42 PM
>To:     ga@dnso.org
>Subject:        RE: [ga] Re: Board descisions
>
>Dear Chuck,
>thank you for this confirmation.
>Obviously dates would be of real interest to put the different events
>into perspective.
>
>On 00:13 19/03/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
> >My understanding is as follows and as I recall Joe Sims confirmed much of
> >this in Melbourne:  VeriSign approached ICANN about the possibility of
> >renegotiating the agreements and proposed the $200M investment idea.  At
> >first, this seemed to be an unrealistic idea so VeriSign continued pursuing
> >the separation of its Registrar business.  Later, some interest was
> >communicated by ICANN and they then proposed the terms of the new
> >agreements.  Detailed negotiations of those terms then ensued.
>
>Kent spoke of an endowment into the iCANN: could you comment in this?
>
> >I do not know specific time frames of the above, but I can tell you that
> >within VeriSign there was not much optimism about the possibility of
> >renegotiating until very late in the game, well into 2001.
>
>So why the take-it or leav-it ultimatum.
>Jefsey
>
>--
>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