ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] ICANN-VRSN Mystery Agreement

  • To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [alac] ICANN-VRSN Mystery Agreement
  • From: ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel <michel@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 13:35:31 -0700

The Exhibit A reference is a typo, the reference should refer to ______ 2005 (since it is referencing the .COM Agreement that is proposed as part of this settlement. )

Please let ICANN know if you find other typos. Corrections will be made to this and other typos on the site.

Regarding John's question (below), a comprehensive response can be found in a letter from Kurt Pritz, ICANN VP Operations, posted at <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg03498.html>

It includes the following:

"... The parties entered into non-public negotiations in an effort to establish whether it was possible to reach an agreement. The negotiations led to a lengthy set of discussions regarding specific provisions of the agreement and the conflict points and also sought consultation with the US Department of Commerce, as required by the present .COM agreement.

We understood in entering into these discussions that it would be nearly impossible for a public company such as VeriSign to participate in an open and public dialogue for the resolution of such a dispute, without a concrete proposal regarding how the settlement could be constructed. Therefore, ICANN negotiated the best possible deal that it believed that it could negotiate in the public's interest, and required a full 24-day public comment period before board approval would be sought. ...

...The settlement has been in negotiation for many months, with talks extending back to late 2004. The new agreement has been streamlined from the old (161 pages versus 91)...."


Bret Fausett wrote:
Denise, can you ask for a copy of the February, 2005 ICANN-Verisign
agreement mentioned in Exhibit A to the settlement agreement? I think we
should see it. Thanks,

John R Levine wrote:
Or is that the agreement itself, and this is our hint that they've been
wrangling over it since February and forgot to update it?

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy