Re: [alac] ALAC position on ICANN/Verisign deal?

[Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@xxxxxx>]

I agree with the statement, but have a question on the last paragraph:

What "part of the legal foundation on which ICANN was built" would be 
"questioned or eroded"?  Does that need clarification?

And what do you think of adding half a sentence to your introduction (see 
below) or do you think this is too much of reducing our concerns to just two 
factors?

ciao
Annette

> Dear Dr. Cerf:
> 
> The At Large Advisory Committee ("ALAC") has carefully reviewed and 
> considered the revised agreements between ICANN and Verisign and does 
> not believe that the revisions address the serious concerns of 
> registrants previously described by the ALAC in both its written 
> submissions and its meeting with the Board in Vancouver. 

To ensure competition and protect registrants from monopolistic pricing, the 
ALAC recommends that the Board take the following action:
> 
>     1.   Reject the proposed settlement agreement;
>     2.   Proceed to trial with Verisign; and
>     3.   Begin a renewal/rebid process for .COM in accord with the 
> renewal provisions of the existing agreement.          
> 
> The ALAC understands that ICANN Staff believes that one of the 
> litigation risks to ICANN is that the legal foundation on which ICANN 
> was built will be questioned or eroded. This is a risk we believe is 
> worth taking. An ICANN that cannot ensure competition and protect 
> registrants from monopolistic pricing is not an ICANN worth retaining.
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> At Large Advisory Committee
> 

-- 


______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193