The accuracy of the analysis notwithstanding, it neglects to factor in the
strength of ICANN going into the negotiations and the strength of ICANN
coming out of the negotiations. The VRSN deal was just a smaller point in
the larger negotiation. I still maintain that ICANN, and therefore the
community came out ahead.
Regards,
-rwr
"There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Gordon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [TLDA-Members] Fwd: BulkRegister partners with New.Net
> At 6:31 AM -0500 2/2/03, Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
>
> >The bad actor is almost inevitably Verisign each and every time.
>
> What about the renegotiation of the CNO contract?
>
> Q. Why was renegotiation required?
>
> A. Because the original contract had glaring errors in it that ICANN
needed
> to fix.
>
> Q. What did this allow Verisign to do?
>
> A. Put ICANN over a barrel and get terms changed to increase their power
at
> the expense of Registrants and Registrars (other than ones owned by them).
>
> Q. Who drafted the original contract and got paid for doing so?
>
> A. Joe Sims.
>
> Q. Who got paid to correct Joe Sim's mistakes?
>
> A. Joe Sims.
>
> Q. Who stood up in front of the GA at an ICANN meeting and said the
> re-drafted contract with Verisign was not-negotiable?
>
> A. Joe Sims.
>
> Q. Who was in charge of negotiations when DoC said it WAS negotiable?
>
> A. Joe Sims.
>
> Q. What ICANN board member (representing the DNSO constituency and voted
> onto the Board by the DNSO) voted FOR the acceptance if the new contract,
> even though the DNSO voted AGAINST the acceptance?
>
> A. Someone other than Joe Sims.
>
>
> Interesting URLs:
>
> http://forum.icann.org/nsi2001/3AABE9A900000232.html
>
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/dnso-input-verisign-revisions-28mar01.htm
>
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-02apr01.htm
>
>
> So who was the bad actor there?
>
> >If even
> >one-tenth of the energy that the Persistent Critics invested in pursuing
> >objections to ICANN's legitimacy was instead used to pursue objections to
> >Verisign's tactics (and therefore presumably working to improve the
> >community lot), then important issues would tend to boil away much
quicker
> >and the very dynamic that the Persistent Critics most like to point to
would
> >disappear in a flash.
>
> Well, Ross, the above URLs (and lots more) give examples of people
> objecting to Verisign's tactics, and the ICANN staff and BoD ignoring the
> lot and rubber stamping.
>
> Ignore me once, shame on you, ignore me twice...
>
> All just my opinion.
>
>
> --
>
> Paul Gordon, IQ Management Corporation http://iqmc.com
>
