[ga] Letter to board.

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

All Members,

Ms. Lane, in keeping with her tireless contributions to the Internet
Stakeholders society as a whole has, sent this letter.  That letter is
in the spirit of what we posted within an hour of learning about the
modifications and new contract with Verisign.

So we are giving all members the time we have to voice objections to
this letter.

Speak now or do not be counted.  If the timing seems completely
unreasonable, well that is the point.

If you are in agreement, please email me personally, as it is unfair to
the list to do otherwise. If you would either agree with this letter or
not and put in the subject line agree or do not agree that will suffice.
It is the letter that you either agree with or not and not the contract.

Thank you for your kind and considerate attention to my childrens'
Interenet.



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board,
Any attempt by the BoD to approve or agree the new .com Agreement with
VeriSign in advance of proper consultation with the DNSO Names Council,
Constituencies and General assembly is hereby objected in full for
procedural reasons. The General Assembly of the DNSO, including members
of
the Names Council and all Constituencies, cannot possibly approve or
reject
the new revisions unless all members have a reasonable opportunity to
review
the details agreed exclusively between Stuart Lynn and Stratton Scavlos
on
behalf of ICANN and VeriSign respectively . Since these latest revisions

were made available less than 24 hours ago, any decision to proceed
regardless of attempts to seek consensus, will be made without the
support
of the General Assembly and could therefore be challenged.
In the short time available, here are a summary of comments  from GA
Members
that note the following salient points:-
1) ICANN is claiming changes have been made to the new agreement with
the
clear intention of making the new contract more attractive, in which
case,
these cannot be simply minor procedural changes.
2) Changes are being rushed through with no time for consideration or
review
by the participate, community-based organizations set up for that
purpose
3) VeriSign would rather have some DNSO support behind any Board
decision to
go with option B in the face of all the comments supporting the "status
quo"
or option A.
4) It could be argued that ICANN management, having stated publicly that
no
changes were possible, should now want to agree to more time if that
undertaking is to be reversed.
5) That changes to the agreement are welcome, but it would be a terrible

policy example to agree to such changes with less than 24 hours to
consider
and analyze them
6) That VeriSign and the DoC should agree to a 30 or 60 day extension to
the
May 18 deadline to allow consideration of the new changes.
7) That while VeriSign said they would not agree to an extension
previously,
they also said no changes would be considered.
8) That until this matter is resolved, Option A (status quo) is the
safest
option.
9) That there are merits and benefits in both options, with the most
recent
changes offering some benefits, particularly in the WHOIS area.

All errors in posting are mine and mine alone.  If I have offended
anyone or broken any rules I accept all consequences.  Any copyright I
may have violated is my own publishing and not that of another.  I only
ask that you complain in private as I ahve already burdened this list
beyond reason.

Sincerely,

--
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