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

[<sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Looks good to me. It shows our concerns and a common pov. If we make it longer 
it would be confusing, so, let´s send it.

I also think we should produce a stronger opinion on the .XXX issue .... 

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: Lunes, Febrero 20, 2006 4:59 pm
Asunto: Re: [alac] ALAC position on ICANN/Verisign deal?

> Let's send it.  It's short and to-the-point.  Maybe (but I doubt 
> it) 
> it will even get some attention.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> At 02:49 PM 2/20/2006, Bret Fausett wrote:
> >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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> http://www.chillingeffects.org/  
> 
>