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

[shahshah@xxxxxxxx]

Sounds fine to me except that I find the phrase <The ALAC understands that
ICANN Staff believes that one of the...> a little convoluted and not
consistent with the direct simplicity of the rest. And why should we rely
on an off-the record statement by the counsel? Couldn't we do it simpler
and less presumptuously by just saying:< The ALAC understands the
litigation risks ICANN may be underetaking, but this risk we believe is
worth taking....>

Siavash

> litigation risks to ICANN is
> Taking the comments from the list, how about if we submit the following:
> --
>
> 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. For this
> reason, 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
>


*************************************************
IPM/IRNIC
P.O.Box 19395-1795, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
Tehran 19548, Iran
Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80, 22 29 03 06
Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
Email: shahshah@xxxxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxx, shahshah@xxxxxxxxx
*************************************************