Re: [ga] U.S. Gov't sets date for ICANN-Verisign power deal appro val

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:50:34AM +1200, DPF wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that when many within ICANN begged
> for even a 30 day extension to allow more time for consultation the
> very clear message was that this is not possible and we will stick
> with the status quo if no decision by this time.  We were told even a
> delay of some weeks would be unfair to Verisign's plans.
> 
> The USG has now asked for a 21 day extension and as you have indicated
> this will be granted.  Why the different treatment between requests
> from ICANN for more time and requests from the USG?

0) Things change.

1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO is not.

2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.

3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract 
negotiations.

4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
best. 

5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if 
there had been policy issues in the contracts.

6) There could even be further changes in the contract as the result of 
issues raised by the USG.  That's the way contract negotiations go.  
That's why the idea of the DNSO overseeing the contract negotiations 
is silly.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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