Subject:
Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign Agreements
Date:
Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:23:36
+0100
From:
Pilar Luque pluque@nic.es
Organization:
INECO S.A.
To:
Dr W Black W.Black@nominet.org.uk
CC:
Chris Disspain ceo@auda.org.au, cctld-discuss@wwtld.org,
ga@lists.centr.org,
philip.sheppard@aim.be, amadeu@nominalia.com,
gac.mail@noie.gov.au,
vcerf@mci.net,
apisan@servidor.unam.mx,
karl@cavebear.com,
jcohen@shapirocohen.com,
phil.davidson@bt.com, f.fitzsimmons@att.net,
ken.fockler@sympatico.ca,
mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, hans@icann.org,
shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr,
lynn@icann.org,
andy@ccc.de,
junsec@wide.ad.jp, quaynor@ghana.com,
helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de,
linda@icann.org, pdeblanc@usvi.net,
Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr,
orobles@nic.mx,
Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com,
grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz,
h.hotta@hco.ntt.co.jp,
harris@cabase.org.ar, sastre@anwalt.de,
mueller@syracuse.edu,
yjpark@myepark.com,
vany@sdnp.org.pa,
kstubbs@corenic.org,
erica.roberts@bigpond.com, Paul.Kane@reacto.com,
cchicoine@thompsoncoburn.com, aaus@mpaa.org,
gcarey@carey.cl
References:
1
Dear
all,
Thank you for getting involved in this discussion, although I was
expecting
more participation from the European registries because I am
convinced that
we are of the DNSO and it is the only tool we have
available to send a message
to the Board to stop this revised agreement
without enough time to comment on
it. I think that, as part of the DNSO,
we ccTLD have, a saying in what the Board
and ICANN staff sign with
Verisign because it might influence on what we have
to pay towards the
ICANN budget as ccTLDs (reduce or increase it). So please,
let's
bombard the NC and the Board with messages asking them to do something
to
stop it. We only have till the 30/03/01 as on the 2/4/01 the
decission will
be taken through the Board teleconference. They must
wake up and do something
about it before it is too late for the whole of
the Global Internet Community. Regards, Pilar ************************************************************************************************** Dr
W Black wrote:
>
> Chris' message expresses just what I felt too. I feel only
able to speak
> personally on this since, as Eberhart would put it: it's nothing
to do
> with us. However, I think it does show that ICANN has some fundamental
>
structural problems: its' authority, it's method of working etc. So I'm
> personally
with Pilar, Nigel and others in urging a delay. I ask our NC
> representatives
to take these views into account.
>
> W.B.
>**************************************************************************************************
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Chris Disspain wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm being naive
but it seems to me that this is all relatively simple.
> >
> > * Verisign either
want deal B or don't care which of the two deals is in
> > place.
> > * It
is a standard negotiating tactic to state firmly that no time
> > extensions will
be allowed.
> > * It is also a standard negotiating tactic to state that no changes
or
> > further changes will be agreed to.
> > * If we stick with deal A, no-one
is any worse off than they would have been
> > if deal B had never come along.
>
> * If Verisign want deal B (the most likely scenario in my view) and assuming
>
> that both ICANN and the USG are prepared to agree to a time extension then
>
> the likelihood is that Verisign will agree to an extension of time even if
>
> they only do so at the last minute.
> >
> > All logic would dictate that
Verisign prefer deal B to deal A. Why else
> > would it be on the table? In this
negotiation there will be a point where
> > maintaining the status quo of
deal A becomes more attractive to Verisign
> > than the proposed new deal B. I
very much doubt that this point has been
> > reached yet and they are using all
the usual tricks to ensure that this does
> > not occur.
> >
> > The DNSO
should recommend to ICANN that they call Verisign's bluff, insist
> > on more
time (assuming that USG will accept this) and negotiate the terms
> > calmly and
rationally without the time pressure that is presently obscuring
> > the real
issues.
> >
> > Chris Disspain
> > CEO - auDA
> > ceo@auda.org.au
>
> +61-3-9226-9495
> > www.auda.org.au
> >
> >***************************************************************************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org [mailto:owner-cctld-discuss@wwtld.org]On
>
> Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
> > Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2001 21:31
> > To: Pilar
Luque
> > Cc: cctld-discuss@wwtld.org
> > Subject: Re: [cctld-discuss] Verisign
Agreements
> >
> > For the avoidance of doubt, .GG and .JE formally
> >
support the position of .ES
> >
> > While Option B seem to have advantages
for
> > the ccTLD community (and we might tend to support
> > it as a result),
it really seems tp we are being railroaded into
> > agreeing an agreement with
insufficient time
> > to consider.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nigel
> >
>
>
> > Nigel Roberts
> >********************************************************************************************
>
>
> > Pilar Luque wrote:
> > >
> > > ] Peter,
> > > ]
> > > ] This
is the answer from .es:
> > > ]
> > > ] We do not like any of them as both
keep Verisign in the same monopoly
> > > ] position as usual. We would like the
DNSO to put enough pressure so
> > > that
> > > ] on 10/05/01 this ammendements
(Option B) to the original Verisign
> > > ] Contract (Option A) are not approved.
The whole of the Internet
> > > ] Community would like to have more input into
what should be on such
> > > ] Verisign contract. I think that was a common
and major attitude
> > > towards
> > > ] the Verisign Option B Contract clear
during the Public Forum held
> > > ] recently in Melbourne. We should respond
to such reaction.
> > > ]
> > > ] Regards,
> > > ]
> > > ] Pilar LUQUE
(.es)
> > > ]
> > > ]
> > > ]
> > > ]
> > > ] Option A [
]
> > > ] > or
> > > ] > Option B [ ]
> > > ] >
> >
>
> > > David,
> > >
> > > You cannot count the .es opinion on the matter
as an abstention because
> > > what we are trying to do is raise the alarm so
that the whole thing can
> > > be stopped before it is too late and the consequences
are irreparable.
> > > ICANN and Verisign cannot force the whole of the Internet
community to
> > > be pushed into something without having the time to reflect
deeply about
> > > it and both Agreements protect the Verisign monopoly in different
but
> > > clear ways. 30th of march is not a realistic time frame for comment
>
> > since Melbourne meetings are only 2 weeks away and we were told about
> >
> the ammendments 1 week before arriving into Melbourne. The DNSO must
>
> > tell the BOARD that we do not want any of the deals and we should have
> >
> time to reflect on option B taking into account a lengthy consultation
> > >
from the Internet Global Community. The BOARD ON 2/4/01 SHOULD SAY NO
>
> > INTO BEING PUSHED AGAIN INTO A RUSHED DECISION. 10/5/01 IS A DECISIVE
>
> > DATE AND WE NEED MORE TIME TO REFLECT.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
>
> > Pilar
> > > --
> > > ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO
> > > Discussion
Mailing list
|
|
|