RE: [alac] VeriSign Statement

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It would be a useful exercise to list the stakeholders that almost 
unanimously opposed the Verisign deal.
As I asked in a previous email, can we point to the GNSO statement on the 
issue? The ccNSO? The ASO? The GAC? The SSAC? The RSSAC?

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison





> From: Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg@xxxxxx>
> To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [alac] VeriSign Statement
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:47:17 +0100
>
> It is nice, that after all the procedural stuff, we are back to work.
>
> I think we all agree that we need a statement on the VeriSign issue.  I 
> talked with Bret about it and this is our proposal. Maybe we should add 
> some more issues we are criticising or just keep it short and clear. What 
> do you think?
>
> Draft for a Statement on VeriSign contract:
> The At Large Advisory Committee is disappointed that the ICANN Board has 
> approved the proposed agreement for the operation of the .COM registry with 
> Verisign in spite of the near unanimous stakeholder opposition to it. The 
> approval creates the appearance that the ICANN Board has placed its 
> self-interest in expanded revenue ahead of the interests of domain name 
> registrants. We invite the Board to reconsider its decision and take all 
> necessary steps to ensure that ICANN fulfills its mission of bringing a 
> competitive environment to the registration of domain names.
>
> Best
> Annette

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963