RE: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chuck,
You are right. Eric is mostly emotional and injust to NSI. But I am
not sure you are right about the impact on the GA image. Emotional
reactions belong to life.

No other place in the iCANN and in the industry can rationally take
them into account (you don't see an employee or a paid consultant
being emotional). Yet we need to make sure that every market and
political assessment take them into account, how?

IMHO the GA has the capacity not to overlook the emotional aspects
and to aggregate them  with many other "unusual" sources into
professional place (GA) and market (@large) self-produced studies.
Managements should be (and are) eager for that.

There is nothing sophisticated, costly or complex in Eric's reaction,
no need to pay a market study firm:  there is just what many
may/will say in the public.

- your PR and management should be happy with this kind of early
   warning and test bed of market/public/press reaction (BTW I suppose
   you would not be here nor Marilyn nor several others otherwise).

- GA reports, worked in common are not emotional but voted by a
   diversified segmentation of the industry opinions. They should then
   be of real value to you as based upon the whole spectrum if the
   possible inputs.

In Plan B's case this has shown its capacity to make things moving,
melting an emotional dynamic with a diversified scope of rationals.
It is under way to show the same capacity in several other areas.

Or I am totally wrong?
Jefsey



On 13:22 27/04/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
>Eric,
>
>I don't suppose there is a possibility that VeriSign offered the most
>reliable and responsive response to ARIN's needs?  Or maybe you think that
>they should have selected second best because the best choice was VeriSign?
>Finally, what does providing quality technical services have to do with
>control?
>
>In my opinion, this is the kind of emotional reaction that limits the GA's
>credibility and therefore the willingness of others to take it seriously.
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 7:55 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: [ga] Verisign Contract/policy
>
>
>If any one questions whether it is right and good for us to look at
>thses contracts and respond accordingly and whether or not they are
>policy matters read this and weep.
>And do not knee jerk react without reading the entire article and
>reflecting on what is a conflict of interest and what is an illegal
>monopoly and what is required by the APA and the White Paper.
>
>"Mountain View, CA, April 25, 2001-VeriSign, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRSN), the
>leading
>provider of Internet trust services, today announced that the American
>Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), the organization that administers
>and
>registers Internet Protocol (IP) numbers for North America, South
>America,
>the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa, has selected VeriSign's Managed
>DNS
>Services to ensure the reliability and robust query response of its DNS
>(Domain Name System) zone file information. VeriSign's Secondary Name
>Server
>Hosting, part of the company's suite of Managed DNS Services, will
>provide
>secondary name server support to ARIN's zones for inverse address
>mapping,
>which perform IP address-to-domain name resolution on the Internet."
>
>more info:  http://corporate.verisign.com/news/2001/pr_20010425b.html
>
>Verisign's control over the existing Internet structure is dangerous and
>ill advised from a public policy perspective.  Now they are
>getting/maintaining a certain amount of control over even the ccTLDs.
>Where is the GAC and DNSO in this matter?
>
>I have read much of the DoC documents regarding this matter, they are
>begging for a political cure to this mess.  They do not want to be
>experts in these matters they want to hear from the experts - the GA.
>They can only do what is right if we tell them what that is, and the
>only thing that is right is that the Internetstakeholders position on
>these matters takes precedence!
>
>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
>--
>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

--
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