[wg-review] Verisign [was:Funding the Restructured DNSO]

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 08:57 17/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:

>I would be a bit cautious about this.  Verisign and ICANN have made
>very clear that no amendments can or will be considered.  In the two
>weeks we have available we should concentrate on analysing the
>proposal as it stands, not suggesting how we would like it changed
>because this is not possible (to my regret).
>

I have though hard about this and I end up agreeing with Milton Mueller.

Quote
And the possibility of improving the agreement is the CRITICAL point.
ICANN's staff has made a major mistake by conducting their negotiations
with NSI in secret and failing to use the mechanisms for input and debate
in ICANN's own structure. Now they are telling us that we have a binary
choice: either accept the agreement they proposed, or go with the prior
agreement negotiated by ICANN, NSI and the US Commerce Dept in 1999. 

Clearly, BOTH choices are not optimal. Both agreements could be improved in
ways that would clearly benefit the whole domain name market. 

WHY has ICANN staff put us into a position where we are forced to make bad
choices?
Unquote

Therefore,  I will put up a third option in the Polling Booth, as a
sub-option as DPF suggested on the GA list, so that those who feel bad
about having two "take it or leave it"  options only, can express their
desire for renegotiation, without starting the big discussion on that now.
The ICANN board can always undertake this at a later date, while the
agreement of 99 is still in force.
But I agree with the realists, that this option for the moment is not going
to fly.
 
--Joop

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html