Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: rod dixon
Date/Time: Sat, March 24, 2001 at 10:18 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0
Score: 5
Subject: I agree IN PART.


      I agree with the comments on the substantive issues (3-6) provided by the NCDNHC. I would amplify, if that could be possible, their procedural comment concerning how the ICANN staff have undermined the DNSO by proceeding in negotiations over the terms of an agreement so at odds with what could have been expected as simple contract renewal terms that the staff usurped the policy-making authority/responsibility of the DNSO. This error in judgment strikes me as being just as serious as the troubling terms of the proposed  agreements.  One need no longer wonder when the day will arrive that it will be as important to persuade "staff," as it is an ICANN BOARD MEMBER, of various policy matters; TODAY IS THAT DAY.

One final point. I would not agree with the NCDNHC that agreements should be supported regardless of how we have arrived at this point. There may be good points that come out of the contract negotiations process - - I certainly believe that some of the proposed changes might be good, particularly those concerning the use of three distinct contracts covering each TLD separately - - but that should NOT excuse the fact that the subject matter of the negotiations went far afield from that which the staff should have recognized to be the responsiblity of ICANN's bottom-up policy-making process within the DNSO.  As a lawyer who has been frequently engaged in issues of due process, I have come to have no doubt that process DOES matter.

- Rod Dixon


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy