RE: [alac] VeriSign Statement
Bret, To be clear, it is obvious to me that there is a widespread unhappiness (to say the least) about the Verisign deal (and I have stated loud and clear that I was part of it). However, what I was reacting upon was the idea that there was consensus in the constituencies against the deal. This is simply not true. And you confirm it, in admitting that several constituencies (actually, the vast majority of the Board components, i.e. ACs and SOs) did not speak. Even the GNSO, as you noted, only asked to defer the Board's decision, not getting into the merit of it. And in fact, one of the two GNSO Directors abstained, the other one voted in favour of the deal. The reality is far more complex, as the debate in the Board in the last months has shown, than what you characterize as a consensus outcry from the community, and a Bopard that goes in the opposite direction. Going to the last sentence of yours: Aside from Verisign, the registries, and the paid lobbying groups that Verisign asked to weigh in, who else thought this was a good idea? The Board has 2 representatives for each SO. Have the SOs expressed an opinion? No. Why should the Directors take a position? And in fact the vote was split: Demi (ccNSO), Alex (GNSO) and Mouhamet (ASO) voded "Yes". Peter (ccNSO) and Raimundo (ASO) voted "No". Mike (GNSO) abstained. The only person that could be related with "Verisign, Registries or paid lobbies" is Mike, because of his relationship with Afilias, who provides the back end to some registries. And he correctly abstained. Going to the 8 NomCom Directors, here they are: Susan, Joichi and Njeri voted "No", everybody else voted "Yes". Are the "Yes" the bad guys bought by Verisign lobbysts, while the "No" idealists who adhere to the true spirit of the Internet? In spite of the fact that, had I been a voting member, I would have voted "No", I reject this approach. The fact that you and I do not agree with the approach of raising the cap as a step towards a more competitive market, there are people who do. And who genuinely put their vote where their mouth is. And there are people who consider this whole 7% matter absolutely irrelevant, and do not see why they should reject a deal on the basis that prices at the source would rise. Incidentally, I also do believe that the price raise will be by and large irrelevant for most registrants, but would oppose the principle of granting a monopolist a free raise of revenue. So, in simple words, we would do a better service to the user community if we did try to understand the dynamics and the reasons for the Board decision, and maybe since we do have a substantial role to play in the NomCom, try to influence the choiice of future Board members (I have already noted in another message that all Directors whose term will expire this year have voted "Yes"). Of course, a press conference, a motion of no confidence, or other colourful action will make us happier. But at the end of the day be of little usefulness. Personally, I think that the development and deployment of IDN.IDN would be by far a more important outcome for the Internet user than a few percent raise in price, and I will provide my limited time more to the former than the latter. But, again, your mileage might vary. As we say in italian: "Il mondo e' bello perche' e' vario". Regards, Roberto GAETANO ALAC ICANN BoD Liaison _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
|