[ga] WLS: Fair Warning

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Remember the VeriSign contract renegotiations?  The DNSO has already once 
recently been jerked around by the ICANN Board with regard to VeriSign 
proposals.  Stuart Lynn had argued to the Department of Commerce that no 
"policy" matters were implicated in the contract revisions, stating:

"As this recitation indicates, the ultimate Names Council recommendations to 
ICANN are, in general, not focused on "policy" issues, but rather are 
suggestions about how the proposed new agreements could be modified, by 
changing contractual dates and the like, to make them better agreements in 
the view of those supporting the resolutions. These expressions are certainly 
important, but they can hardly be described as representing the kinds of 
policy issues that are, pursuant to ICANN's bylaws, the initial 
responsibility of the DNSO within the ICANN structure. The only issue that 
has been prominently mentioned in this discussion that could even arguably be 
termed a "policy" matter is the issue of common ownership of registry and 
registrar businesses. Thus, it is useful to focus on that point to illustrate 
why the ICANN Board and management concluded that the proposed new agreements 
were operational, not policy, matters."  
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/lynn-letter-to-rose-16apr01.htm

If anyone is opposed to the VeriSign WLS proposal, I would recommend that all 
arguments be framed in terms of "policy".  Otherwise, this contract revision 
will proceed on schedule just like the last contract revision.  Don't be 
stupid twice.  If there are policy implications, make them clear.
--
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