RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Joop,
as agreed with Thomas Roessler: IANAG (I am not a Genious). But I am
stubborn when an important point is right and I may not have explained it
well :-)

On 00:44 18/05/01, Joop Teernstra said:
> At 16:00 17/05/01 +0200, Jefsey
> Morfin wrote: 
> > Dear Chuck,
> > I certainly understand your concern and you being sensitive about the
> > current situation, since the DNSO/GA may actually be one of the catalysts
> > of the problems. I am sorry for that: we were only considering our and
> > the Internet community interests, the way we see them.
> >
> > On 06:18 17/05/01, Gomes, Chuck said:
> > > No
> > > conclusive evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the rumor you
> > > mention, undoubtedly because it is just a rumor.  Again, this has
> > > nothing to do with Registry/Registrar separation because the NSI
> > > Registrar has the same exact access to the SRS as all other
> > > registrars.
> >
> > You might be correct and your position would still not stand: it is not
> > to us to prove there is a problem. It is to you to prove there is none.
>
> This seems to be an unreasonable request as "negatives are not
> provable".
> Chuck cannot prove to you that rumors aren't true.
>
> You've got to do better than that, Jefsey.


What I say is simple:

- VeriSign has signed with us an agreement against Registry/Registrar
collusion. This was certainly not without reasons from one or both
parties.
- now VeriSign tells us "let forget about my signature" because
"I say there is no reason for concerns", "I challenge you
to show me a case where there was problem" and "I do not want
to listen to any of your reasons, as I name them rumour)".

This is not the proper way to change something in a contract. 

I you want me to spell out what they have to do:

- they must summarize all the reasons we (they) had in 1999 to fear
problems. 
- they must have our approval that all the reasons are listed.
- they must convince us that none of these reasons, from experience,
really stand.
- if they cannot convince us for some, they may want to demonstrate that
our current agreement create other problems and that the balance is such
that our interest is to change this agreement.

If a contract can be changed as the iCANN bylaws are changed, contracts
becomes unecessary.
 
> How about buying some Verisign
> shares and ask pointed questions at the shareholders' meeting? 
> Like: how could Verisign maximise shareholder value by having contracted
> both the registry and registrar function with ICANN.
> You are likely to get a more meaningful response than
> here.<g>

Dear Joop, I do not want that kind of meaningfull response. I obviously
assume these people are professionnals and if they propose a change, it
is in the best interest of their Stock Holders.

I want to be convinced by VeriSign that it is *my* (the 
international user community represented by the iCANN) interest to accept
their proposed change. 

Jefsey