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

[Bret Fausett <bfausett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know understand ICANN Staff's fear, but one of the possibilities 
mentioned by the General Counsel on an earlier call with the registrars 
was that an ICANN defeat in the Verisign litigation could mean the end 
of ICANN. I think that's okay. We don't need ICANN if it can't perform 
it's basic functions.

I'll add your proposed intro. Anyone else? We should send this today.

          Bret

Annette Muehlberg wrote:

> 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
> >
> >    
>
>