[icann-eu] Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions - Versign Contracts considerations

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Roberto and all remaining assembly members,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Kent,
>
> Just a couple of short comments, because I think that we made our positions
> clear.
>
> >
> >Could be, I don't recall from the context above.  However, when you
> >think about it, what people are clamoring for is indeed that Verisign
> >determine the future of .org, because what they are clamoring for is
> >for .org to remain in vsgns hands.
>
> What they are clamoring is that it is better (or at least a lesser evil)
> that .org stays with NSI than the Registrar stays with the Registry.
> And I agree with this approach.

  Exactly!  However I don not agree with this approach, and the vast
majority of our members (Stakeholders all) don't either.  In fact a third
option is obtainable or possibly a much better objective.

  Our position is that the Registry and registrar function for .ORG and .NET
should be separated from Versigh/NSI AND that .ORG and .NET registration
policy not be modified after such a separation is affected. Versign can keep
.COM and the registry function for .COM as well.  Hence providing separate
registries for .Com, .NET, and .ORG in separate organizations, be they
for-profit or non-profit.  In the case of .ORG, it should only be in a
non-profit organizations hands.

  Another point discussed with respect to the Versign contracts is the
$5m and $200m funding and how it should be fiduciary managed
so as to maximize the use of these funds, and yet still provide for
some small flexibility in their use...  I have already forwarded our
position on this issue last week.

  The final issue, and of great interest and importance as well is, the
process in which these issues are to be addressed and finally determined.
The DNSO GA, the @large and the Constituencies must me in a majority
agreement before signing and execution of any contract can be consummated.
The ICANN BoD doesn't seem to agree on this point rather strongly, which
is understandable, but not expectable.

>
>
> >
> >I think Mr Sclavos dictated that letter to a secretary mainly as a
> >polite message to the chair of the board of a company with whom his
> >company has been dealing with.  The letter is not a contract, and indeed
> >it is quite possible that Mr Sclavos dictated it in a hurry.
>
> Oh, yes! And we may even think that "it is quite possible" that the
> secretary him/herself drafted the letter and put it in the pile of documents
> to be signed (in a hurry). It's just about the monopoly in the domain name
> business, worthed only few billion dollars, and it's perfectly reasonable
> that it does not deserve more than few seconds of Mr. Sclavos' time.
>
> (Seriously, I thought you made above the assumption that Mr. Sclavos was not
> an idiot! This seems to contradict your assumption.)
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208