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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2001 16:28:19 +1300, you wrote:
>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

Yes this is really quite bad.  I have been involved in non profit
organisations as staff and it would be unthinkable for us to have
spent months negotiating changes on the most important contract that
exists without having at the very least informed the Board and more
likely to have got some negotiating framework.

To then present it at such a late stage, attack people who disagree
with it, state that it is now non negotiable and must be endorsed 100%
or declined would probably have lost us our jobs.  My Board would have
been baying for blood.  Perhaps it is a cultural thing?

>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.

Yes I think one needs a clear vote on Option A vs B with the total
adding up to 100%.  But it will be useful for the future to have
almost a footnote stating what percentage of people would have
supported a time extension on the status quo divestiture date in order
to allow amendments to the proposal to be negotiated.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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