Re: [ifwp] Re: a small gift [was: One More Time]

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

Jim and all,

  I will chime in here.....   (See below my comments)

Jim Dixon wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>
> > >This isn't philosophy; it's very specific: "the corporation shall
> > >recognize and abide by the terms of ANY agreements entered into
> > >between the United States of America and Network Solutions Inc ..."
> >
> > You also neglected to include the provision about contracts with
> > the University of Southern California, and that with the corporation
> > itself.
>
> You are neglecting to deal with what I wrote.  You said that these
> were general and philosophical sections that apply to any entity
> dealing with the new corporation, whereas actually they are quite
> specific in who they refer to and woefully imprecise in describing
> what they are giving away.
>
> IV 1(d) forces the new corporation to honor any contracts
> that might exist, no matter what their nature, between NSI and the
> US government.  The language is somewhat unclear, but the
> requirement seems to be that whatever the US government has
> promised or will someday promise, the new corporation must deliver.
> Would you sign a contract with this sort of language in it?  I
> wouldn't.
>
> IV 1(e) also requires the new corporation to respect property
> rights.  We all know what this is aimed at: NSI's claim of
> intellectual property rights in the .COM/NET/ORG database.

  Yes, and this is not spelled out anywhere near precise enough as to what
isconsidered a property right per se.  This could also cause problems as it
relates
to IP addresses and Domain Names as well.

>
>
> > Two of the contracts exist and are being redone per the
> > NTIA Policy Statement.  The third is being created for the
> > purposes of transferring responsibilities to ICANN.  They
> > all raise complex transitional and legacy matters.
> >
> > Wouldn't you expect that they get referenced?  After all,
> > they're a fairly fundamental part of the transition.
>
> If it was me and not you drafting these bylaws I would charge
> the directors of the new corporation with making sure that they
> got the best deal possible for the Internet community.  That
> certainly does not include a gift of a billion dollars or so to
> NSI.
>
> If any contracts were to be referenced in the bylaws, I would
> require that those contracts be public and I would require that
> they be referenced in an unambiguous way.  Requiring the new
> corporation to honor any and all agreements between these three
> parties is simply ludicrous.

  I agree completely with you first sentence here Jim.  I would also add that
any
contract the the ICANN enters into with any party would require the approval
of a Membership Organization which the bylaws that are being proposed downs not
have currently.  We believe that this is part and parcel to this and other
problems
with the whole set of Bylaws.

>
>
> I have no problems with NSI having prospered from their current
> contract with NSF.  However, that contract ends on 30 September.
> There should be no question of NSI turning a short-term service
> contract into a long-term gold mine, just because no one can be
> bothered to look out for the public good.

  Agreed in part.  But most of this problem again stems from the fact that
thereis NO membership organization, and that membership must have final say over
the
approval of any contracts that are let at least.

>
>
> As far as I can see, what would serve the public good would be to
> turn the .COM/NET/ORG database over to CORE for two or three years,
> with NSI becoming a CORE registrar.  I don't think that this would
> even greatly lessen NSI's income; NSI would easily roll over the
> other CORE registrars.  But it would result in NSI's income being
> tied to superior performance and introduce at least the possibility
> of competition.

  Well we certainly don't agree with CORE getting involved here to be sure!

>
>
> Alternatively, if it is absolutely necessary that NSI keep control
> of the .COM/NET/ORG registry for the moment, I would require that
> NSI swear fealty to and pay a pile of gold to the new corporation in
> return.  This set of provisions lets NSI keep the registry and give
> nothing at all in return.  All the give comes from the new corporation.

Yep.  ANd this is defiantly a very bad idea.  We could see splitting thisrevenue
with NSI possibly.

>
>
> --
> Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council                               Telecommunications Director
> Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679                                    tel +32 2 503 22 65
>
> __________________________________________________
> To view the archive of this list, go to:
> http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp
>
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com