Re: [ga] Letter to board.

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Eric,

If you send a letter, do so only in your own name, as each member
should do if they feel the need.

However, do not do harm to the GA process by trying to claim that your
letter speaks as a consensus of the GA or is on behalf of the GA.

We must be careful to avoid such obvious pitfalls in our individual
dealings,or do harm to the real legitimacy of the GA and its processes
that we are trying to build.

Monday, April 02, 2001, 4:21:41 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> 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



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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