Re: [atlarge-discuss] Revised ALAC report submission schedule

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Judith,

With regard to the VeriSign contract negotiations, the DNSO had an obligation 
to examine the "policy" considerations.  It failed to do so, deciding instead 
to go well beyond its chartered mandate and to offer commentary on the 
"merits" of the proposal.

As Stuart Lynn wrote in his letter to Karen Rose:  "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."

Arguments from a policy-recommending body need to be based on policy 
considerations.  There is nowhere in the record any indication that policy 
implications were evaluated.  A large chorus that sings "I hate VeriSign" is 
not a policy argument.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de