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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 13:46:04 -0700, you wrote:

>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.

Indeed they do.  That is not an answer though - just an observation.

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

ICANN is though and we were told any request by ICANN for an extension
would be turned down.

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

Indeed not.  But the reason the DNSO requests were refused by ICANN is
because ICANN had been told no extension would be granted.

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

A red herring.

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

The proposition that they do not is what I would have called
questionable but there will never be agreement on this.  

The issue of what is and is not policy is an important one and I must
say I am disappointed that there has been no debate on this issue.  I
did try to start one looking at the issue of ccTLD names being
restricted in gTLDs but no-one weighed in on either that this is a
policy decision or that this is a contractual decision.

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

Red Herring.

>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.

It's amazing how often people decry this idea when no one at all has
ever suggested the DNSO should negotiate contracts.  

The DNSO being asked to set a policy framework for such negotiations
is quite a different thing and consistent with our bylaws.

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