I've now read part of the posts here. A major issue
is obviously the future of .org, but then there are a lot of messages criticizing
ICANN for giving VeriSign too much control (http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3A9F625B00000100,
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3A9F4040000000F7, http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3A9F307D000000EF,
http://forum.icann.org/cgi-bin/rpgmessage.cgi?nsi2001;3A9F118C000000D9 ...).Please
keep in mind that there are *existing* agreements in which the US Department of Commerce
played an important role. It would helpful to find out *which* of the options --
old deal or new deal -- is preferable, but there is simply no way to just take away
.com from VeriSign before 2007 unless there are proven violations of the signed agreements.
If you don't like the new deal, do you prefer the old deal? (Your choice, but it
seems a lot of people just say "I want something completely different" and offer
no way of achieving this. If you propose a modification to the existing agreements,
then both parties -- i.e. also VeriSign -- have to agree.)
A. "As is":
-- VeriSign
has to sell Network Solutions
-- VeriSign remains com/net/org operator until
2007,
may get a renewal, may litigate if not
-- Special ICANN
cost recovery scheme unlike
other gTLD registry operators
B. "The
deal":
-- Network Solutions has to become separate subsidiary,
but still owned by VeriSign; operational firewall
has to remain
-- VeriSign remains .org operator until end of 2002,
endows the
non-commercial sponsoring organization
taking over .org (US$ 5 million
and 1 year free
.org resolution services)
-- VeriSign remains
.net operator until end of 2005,
then .net may be reassigned to
other registry op's
-- VeriSign remains .com operator until end of 2007
and presumably (but not certainly) after that
-- ICANN cost recovery scheme
like other gTLD registry
operators
Best regards,
/// Alexander