[icann-eu] Re: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)

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

Chuck and all remaining assembly members,

  I believe this is my 4th post today to the GA list...

Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> It is my understanding that VeriSign would control the spending of the
> funds.  I am not aware of any companies that would commit to spending of
> $200M and let everyone in the world decide how it would be spent.

  Thank you Chuck for this reveling clarification.  It sort of puts this
in
perspective.  So it seems that Verisign is paying itself, and making it
look
like
they are gifting $200m to the internet community for DNS R&D.  Nice bit
of political bait and switch encompassed in a contractual arrangement,
if I do
say so myself!  >;)

  It should also be quite clear as well the contrary to what you suggest
in this comment, no one that I know of is suggesting that the WHOLE
WORLD should decide how this $200m should be spent....  Again a nice
bit of bait and switch.  But I ain't biting!

>
>
> Also, since this will be my fifth post today, let me respond to a comment by
> Peter de Blanc earlier today.  He implied that VeriSign would make the
> investment regardless of whether Option A or Option B was chosen.  I think I
> can safely say that VeriSign would not commit to invest $200M in R&D and
> infrastructure improvements to the .com, .net and .org registries if there
> is considerable uncertainty about our future role with those registries.  We
> are willing to commit to that level of investment with the added certainty
> that Option B provides.  I also believe that this is the way any successful
> business would behave.

  So it is either option B or no $200m for R& D that you are paying
yourself.
How nice!  So much for the theory that Versign/NSI is a benevolent
monopoly,
and is truly interested in the stability of the Internet....

>
>
> Chuck (signing off until Thursday)
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Harald Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent:   Wednesday, March 21, 2001 5:18 PM
> To:     Gomes, Chuck
> Cc:     ga@dnso.org
> Subject:        RE: $200 million (was [ga] Draft Resolution)
>
> At 15:17 21/03/2001 -0500, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >Let me first of all reiterate what I just said in a response to Michael
> >Froomkin: :  "Under the existing agreement, there is a commitment for $0.
> >Under the new agreements, there is a commitment for $200M."
>
> one thing that is unclear in my mind is who would control the allocation of
> the USD 200M.
> We tried this once before (the "domain name tax" that was struck down in
> the early days of paying for DNS names). I've got projects I could think of
> offhand that would eat around 20M, and I think they would benefit the
> Internet - but why should anyone believe my judgment?
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
> +47 41 44 29 94
> Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no
> --
> 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