Re: [ga] Small question

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Mar 24, 2001 at 05:26:17AM +1100, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> On Saturday, March 24, 2001 2:14 AM (AEST)
> Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2001 at 01:17:51PM +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > > We now hear from FAQ why Plan A is so poor.  Why did we not hear about it
> > > before?
> >
> > You haven't heard about it before because you weren't here when the
> > agreements were signed.  There was a great deal of discussion about the
> > NSI agreement when it occured -- one might go far as to say that there
> > was a great deal of resentment that it was such a sweet deal for NSI.
> > But NSI held numerous good cards in the negotiation.
> 
> Sorry, did I miss something?

Apparently.

> Were you part of the negotiating team?

No.

> Or otherwise present when the agreements were signed?

Effectively, yes, as were hundreds of other people.  I was not present
in the room when pen was put to paper, but the agreements were posted to
the public prior to an ICANN public meeting, there was *lots* of spirited
discussion at that meeting; proposals for modifications were made at 
that meeting; the negotiating team spent all night in a hotel room and 
came back with some modifications agreed to by both parties.  This was 
also presented in public, and the Board approved the agreements.  The 
physical act of putting signature to paper was an implementation detail.


> > > Why was it to VRSN to propose a VRSN change and not to the iCANN to demand
> > > and iCANN correction?
> >
> > Hard to say why VRSN proposed a change, but it is not unusual for a
> > business to pursue things that they think will be advantageous to them.
> > Clearly, ICANN didn't "demand" a change because they have no legal
> > grounds to support such an action.  The nature of a contract is that
> > *both* parties must agree.  Only if NSI gave them an opening could they
> > try to negotiate a better result.
> 
> You're not making sense here, Kent.  If a contract is between two
> parties, why would one be more constrained than the other?

I didn't say that one was more constrained than the other -- the
asymetry was in Mr Morfin's statement -- he used "proposed" on one hand
and "demand" on the other.  Either side could have *proposed* changes. 
Mr Morfin used the term "demand"; likewise, there was no basis for
either side to *demand* a change.  

ICANN had no reason to propose changes because they knew, as does
everyone else with any knowledge at all about the situation, that NSI
already had a very sweet deal, and there was no reason to suppose that
NSI would want to give up anything at all.  But, given the opening, the
staff got what I consider to be fairly significant concessions.  In
return, VRSN gets a significant improvement in the stability of their
situation.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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