Re: [ga] ICANN fails to obtain necessary approval for VeriSign deal

[david@farrar.com]

Upon reading this it becomes apparent that this appears to be an opinion by 
some un-named person rather than an actual decision by DOC.

If this is the case the subject line used for the post is quite inappropriate.

DPF

> ICANN fails to obtain necessary approval for VeriSign deal
> 
> ICANN's new proposed agreement with VeriSign, Inc. (Symbol VRSN; $57) does
> not comply with Department of Commerce's ("DOC") regulations governing ICANN
> 's authority to exercise control over the domain name system ("DNS"). ICANN
> failed to comply with the Clinton Administration's June 1998 White Paper's
> consensus and policy requirements. This makes any possible DOC reversal of
> VeriSign's divestiture requirement subject to rule making laws. It may also
> adversely affect the on-going Senate and General Accounting Office
> investigations concerning the Clinton administration's failure to comply
> with Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") in conditionally contracting with
> ICANN to regulate the DNS. We believe the new agreement merits rejection
> because it is anti-competitive and unnecessary. However, these failures make
> VeriSign's "rubber stamp" approval expectations baseless.
> 
> ICANN is a private non-profit California corporation with no statutory
> authority to make regulations or to create public policy. ICANN's by-laws
> and actions must strictly and uniformly conform to the White Paper's
> Statement of Policy and principles in order to attempt to control the DNS
> outside of the APA. ICANN's Board failed to comply with its required
> by-laws. The new VeriSign violates the White Paper's principles.
> 
> According to its by-laws, ICANN's Board is required to develop any policy
> decisions concerning the DNS through its Domain Name Supporting Organization
> ("DNSO"), including the development and approval of the new proposed
> VeriSign agreement. ICANN's by-laws also require that the DNSO seek and
> produce a consensus on any DNS policy matters and abide by the DNSO
> consensus. On March 28, 2001 the DNSO notified ICANN's Board that it failed
> to provide proper notice and that it opposed the Board's proposal. It
> instructed ICANN's Board not to hold a vote without due process. ICANN's
> Board ignored the instructions, and on April 2, 2001 approved the new
> VeriSign agreement.
> 
> The DNSO is composed of seven constituency groups, headed by the Names
> Council ("NC") and a General Assembly. NC consists of 21 members, three
> members from each constituency group. NC has sole authority for determining
> DNSO consensus on DNS matters. Both the NC and the General Assembly rejected
> VeriSign's proposed deal. Among the DNSO's many ignored concerns is its
> opposition to ICANN's "surprise" plan to "abolish VeriSign's obligation to
> sell either its registrar or registry businesses" and the proposed new
> agreement's "windfall to VeriSign". ICANN's failure to gain a consensus and
> its Board's decision to ignore the DNSO's rejection renders its approval
> useless to the DOC.
> 
> The November 10, 1999 agreement attempts to comply with the White Paper's
> "Competition" and "Bottom-Up" basic principles. ICANN's new proposed
> agreement directly violates rather than complies with the "Competition"
> principle, and ICANN's Board approval despite DNSO's rejection directly
> violates rather than complies with the "Bottom-Up" principle.
> 
> 
> /Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


--
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