Re: [ga] ICANN-site FAQ on the existing Verisign agreement

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>]

At 9:32 pm +1200 3/22/01, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>Perhaps you may have seen how ICANN is helpful in providing answers to
>FAQ's re the status-quo agreement with NSI.
>http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
>
>It amazes me how many loopholes the staff have now identified in the
>existing agreement.
>
>Clearly someone may have indicated to ICANN that  when it comes again to a
>court challenge, it may be better off with Plan B.

Which begs the question:

1. Who on the ICANN "staff" was involved in the drafting of the original
contract.

Which begs the further questions:

2. Are they still involved?

3. If so, why?

-- 
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