Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Monday, April 02, 2001 2:05 PM (AEST), I wrote

> So it looks, one again, as if last minute changes are rushed through with no
> time for consideration or review by the participative, community-based
> organisations (however faulty) set up for that purpose.
>
> Clearly this make a joke out of the GA's role in the whole process.

I think ICANN has, to some extent, been captured by the commercial forces.
After all we are talking hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars here.

Neulevel, who has the new tld .biz is spending up on advertising and promotion
even though they know that it has not been approved by the DoC.  That money
could all be wasted.  They do it anyway because they must act as if it's a
foregone conclusion.

It's a form of gamesmanship.  If I'm pointing a gun at a bank teller, I don't
WANT to shoot him or her.  But I have to make them BELIEVE that I will do it if
necessary.

In the same way, Verisign couldn't let anybody THINK that the contract was
negotiable otherwise everybody would have put in suggestions and the whole
process would have to be conducted in public i.e. with full ICANN community
involvement.

No business would want that as it would not be in their best commercial
interests.  The best approach is to bluff everybody into thinking that NO
changes are possible,  That there was no Oprtion C.  I saw them in Melbourne and
they were not very convincing especially when asked about minor changes to the
wording.

Because of this uncertainty, I flagged it as a real possibility two weeks ago:

On Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:21 PM (ADST), I wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Board Decisions

> Actually, I'm not at all convinced that there is no possibility of a Plan C
> despite Verisign's denials.  I can think of three [sic] possibilities:
>
> (1)    Minor changes.  From the viewpoint of market sensitivity, minor changes
> would not impact the value of the share price.  Exactly what are "minor
changes"
> need to be determined but Verisign would surely agree if the community
insisted.
>
> (2)    Changes in Verisign's Favour.  Should the community might make a
proposal
> that Verisgn considers advances their commercial interests, they would push
for
> its adoption despite the tight time-frame.  Lawyers would work all night if
> needed.
>
> (3)    Subsequent Revision. Whilst difficult, any contract can be renegotiated
> during its currency.   Should Plan A be adopted (by default or otherwise) it
is
> certainly possible that the relevant contract could be revised during its
> currency (eg sometime in the next few years) by mutual agreement.
>
> (4)    Shoe on the Other Foot.  Rather than Verisign saying there are two
plans,
> take it or leave it.  ICANN could reverse the situation saying we will adopt
> Plan A now and include an option for Plan B sometime in the next 12 months.
If
> you want to switch to Plan B then you must gain the consensus of the DNSO.

The problem is not, and never has been Verisign.  They are a commercial
organisation and think they are acting in a rational way.  The truth is that the
most rational way to act, in this new environment is with open, transparent
public debate.  Sooner or later they will see that and improve their approach.
Chuch Gomes is doing that very well already.

No, the problem is ICANN for allowing themselves to be shanghaied by narrow,
commercial interests.  In other word's Verisign has outbluffed the ICANN
maestros.

Regardless of the merits, it will be a public disgrace if the ICANN Board votes
in favour of proceeding with Option B.   If they do it will be overturned by
Congress, DoC or public opinion.  The General Assembly should immediately
register its protest.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss







--
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