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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

We only have hours not even days to act.  The GA can not realistically
come to a coherent position in a few hours.  

The NC with a smaller membership could quickly ask for a delay
(especially as this is their existing policy anyway).  In fact on the
basis of their existing policy I believe it would be appropriate for
the NC Chair to personally urgently communicate to the Board that the
DNSO would like time to evaluate the latest set of proposals.

I would suggest that GA members individually e-mail the NC Chair
and/or Board members giving their views on the latest development.

DPF

On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:30:29 -0700, you wrote:

>Dear Names Council,
>
>    We ask that you endorse and pass this letter along to Verisign and the Board
>of Directors of ICANN.  We are not opposing the substance of the amendments and
>or modifications to the agreements as we received them today, because we have not
>had time to evaluate them.
>    What we ask is that you grant a 30 day extension of the end of  negotiation
>date so that all of us can review and give input to the agreement.
>    It is our hope that we be viewed as the advisory behind ICANN, that through
>our public input we can help all parties understand and accomodate public stake
>holder opinion. We also believe that through this process we can help gather
>support for the relationship between ICANN and Verisign.
>    Thank you for any consideration you can give this important request at this
>time.
>
>The GA?
>
>I just see time is critical here so I offer this as a starting point for a letter
>to our council.
>
>My previous letters would go elsewhere in case there is confusion.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>DPF wrote:
>
>> 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
>

--
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