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

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

Kent Crispin wrote:

>  
> 0) Things change.
Nothing has changed, point to one material change.
>  
> 1) The USG is one of the signatories to the contract.  The DNSO
> is not.
That is nonsense, a BoD represents the corporation, DNSO is a fully entitled
part of that corporation.  The BoD is not the corporation it is the
board which can only act on behalf of the corporation. Therefor clearly
the DNSO is part of the corporation which is a signatory to the contract.
>  
> 2) The DNSO is part of ICANN, it is not ICANN.
That is correct the BoD is not ICANN it is part of ICANN and the Staff
is supposed to be the highly paid employee/servants, not of the BoD but
of ICANN to which the DNSO is part and the staff is not.
>  
> 3) The DNSO is concerned with general policy, not contract
> negotiations.
Lest you did not know, in California Public Policy is a fully integrated
part of each and every contract.  Violate Public Policy and your Contract
is void or voidable. Therefor it is the contract that must be subservient
to the DNSO which is the Public policy formation group in ICANN which is
an APA controlled government contractor. The White Paper is also a public
policy directive which governs the terms of the contract.  You are
looking at this as though you were standing on your head.  The DNSO
and it's input is required by every document enabling ICANN to operate. 
The BoD is answerable to the DNSO and not the other way around as our staff
has manipulated it.  Rest assured this will be corrected or ICANN
will be replaced.
>  
> 4) That the contracts involved any policy issues is questionable, at
> best.
The contract itself involves registration policies look up the word policy
I have already posted the defintion for you once. And don't forget every
contract is governed by Public Policy so by it's very nature a contract
has policy issues, yes even your contract for employment.
>  
> 5) The DNSO has absolutely no role in policy *enforcement*, even if
> there had been policy issues in the contracts.
>  
You are outright just plain wrong here.  The DNSO defines policy and
therefor is the director for policy enforcement, again you have the inmates
running the asylum.
>  
> 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.
>  
No the exact opposite is true if you have read the enabling papers. 
I find no authority for Staff to negotiate the contracts can you direct
me to it.
>  
> --
> Kent Crispin                              
> "Be good, and you will be
> kent@songbird.com                          
> lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>  
"Be lonesome and you will come up with lonesome thoughts and conclusions"
Lonesome - "sad or dejected"

Sincerely,