Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Mon, 2 Apr 2001 00:28:51 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:

>to all-
>
>at the names council meeting a few days ago, i suggested that, in business,
>"everything is negotiable". based on inputs from our constituencies, we
>proposed some changes that most of us could accept in order to give a
>"go-ahead" for "option B". Yes, this is "option C"
>
>It is my (personal) feeling that verisign would rather have some DNSO
>support behind any board decision to go with option B in the face of all the
>comments supporting "status quo" or option A.

Indeed.  What has happened is a logical move by Verisign.  One could
argue that ICANN management should have said "hey we have publicly
stated no changes are possible and if we are going to reverse that
undertaking we also want you to agree to more time".  This is
certainly what I would have done if an ICANN negotiator.

>Now, of course, we have another last-minute change that does not allow for
>any DNSO input before the board's vote.
>
>I certainly hope there is a 30 day "cooling off" period before any decision.

Indeed.  Is there any chance the Names Council could quickly pass a
resolution asking the Board to request Verisign to agree to ask DOC
for a 30 day extension?  

The changes to the agreement are welcome but it would be a terrible
public policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours
to consider and analyse them.

If Verisign will not agree to any extension I still believe Option A
(status quo) is the safest option as at least with that we know what
we are getting.

If Verisign do agree to a 30 day delay then I have a growing
confidence a win-win solution can be found.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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