[ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd)
For those of you not following this, the following decision means effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over .com (they spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry operation from the registrar operation. From: Andy M�ller-Maguhn <andy@ccc.de> To: icann-news@lists.ccc.de Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 16:02:27 +0200 Subject: [icann board telco] verisign agreement adopted Mailing-List: contact icann-news-help@lists.ccc.de; run by ezmlm just a short note after the boards telephone call today - the new versign agreement with some soft changes arrangend between the new ICANN ceo Stuart Lynn in cooperation with ICANN lawyers Joe Sims and Louis Touton has been adopted by the board with 12 votes, 3 against (amadeu abril i abril, karl auerbach, myself) and 1 abstain (ken fockler). The style of the discussion - which was about 40 minutes - was rushed by vint cerf cause he wanted to keep the length of the telconf < 1 h. Ken�s argument, that the NC gave a clear vote against the new proposal ("B") was rejected by the president with the argument, that the arguments of the NC where mentioned and lead to the changes. My suggestion, to give the NC�s constituencys at least 2 days for commenting the work from the Lynn/Sims/Touton that was send in a confidential note sunday (yesterday) to the board, was rejected by the Lynn/Sims/Tounton with the argument that the finalized statement would still mean a lot of work until have it as a written contract and any delay would make it worse. ICANN website will give an overview of the adopted decision soon. sorry for only giving you a brief summary here, sitting on the airport of duesseldorf and have to rush to my airplane now... A. http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-02apr01.htm Preliminary Report Special Meeting of the Board 2 April 2001 (Posted 2 April 2001) The ICANN Board of Directors held a meeting by teleconference on 2 April 2001. Directors Vint Cerf (chairman), Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Phil Davidson, Ken Fockler, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Andy Mueller-Maguhn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, Helmut Schink, and Linda S. Wilson participated. The Board adopted the following resolutions: Contract for IANA Function (Adopted 16-0, with Andy Mueller-Maguhn not yet present due to telephone difficulties) Whereas, as provided by resolutions 00.5 and 00.6, ICANN entered a contract with the United States Government on 9 February 2000 under which it performed the IANA functions through 30 September 2000; Whereas, as provided in resolution 00.71 that contract was extended to 31 March 2001; Whereas, the United States Government has requested that the contract be renewed to provide a continuing contractual basis for ICANN's provision of the IANA function as the transition of Internet-coordination functions from the United States Government to ICANN progresses; Whereas, ICANN's General Counsel has reviewed the terms of the renewal contract with the Board and recommended that the Board enter into the agreement on those terms; Resolved [01.45], the Board accepts the terms of the renewal contract as reviewed with the Board; and Resolved further [01.46], the Board authorizes the General Counsel to sign the renewal contract on behalf of the Corporation in the form presented. Revision to Agreements with VeriSign (Adopted 12-3, with one abstension. Vint Cerf, Ivan Moura Campos, Jonathan Cohen, Phil Davidson, Masanobu Katoh, Hans Kraaijenbrink, Sang-Hyon Kyong, Stuart Lynn, Jun Murai, Alejandro Pisanty, Nii Quaynor, and Linda S. Wilson voted in favor. Amadeu Abril i Abril, Karl Auerbach, and Andy Mueller-Maguhn voted against. Ken Fockler abstained. Helmut Schink had left the call by the time of the vote.) Whereas, a proposal has been presented to the Board for various revisions in the agreements among ICANN, Network Solutions, Inc., and the United States Department of Commerce that were approved on 4 November 1999 in resolutions 99.132 and 99.133 and were signed on 10 November 1999; Whereas, the proposal was forwarded to all three supporting organizations with a request for comments; Whereas, in resolution 01.22 the Board requested all members of the Internet community, including the Names Council and any of the constituencies and other participants in the Domain Name Supporting Organization, to provide comments on the substantive merits of the proposal no later than 31 March 2001; Whereas, on 9 March 2001 the Protocol Supporting Organization notified the Board that it had considered the proposal only with regard to potential protocol-related technical issues as a result of splitting .com, .net and .org into three registries, and saw no problems with this approach providing that the stability of the DNS resolution is protected; Whereas, on 30 March 2001 the Names Council of the Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO) forwarded a four-part resolution accompanied by statements of the seven DNSO constituencies and participants in the DNSO general assembly; Whereas, numerous comments of the Internet community have been received on ICANN's web-based public comment forum, by e-mail, and otherwise; Whereas, in response to the comments ICANN has asked VeriSign for improvement of the proposed agreements through the addition of some text changes and other related undertakings between ICANN and VeriSign; Whereas, VeriSign has stated its commitment to make those improvements; Whereas, the Board has carefully considered the proposal in connection with the input from the supporting organizations and Internet community and the improvements agreed by VeriSign and finds that acceptance of the proposal is necessary and appropriate to further ICANN's purposes; Resolved [01.47] that the President is authorized on behalf of the Corporation to sign the proposed agreements with VeriSign as presented, with suitable revisions and additions to the provisions of the agreements to reflect the text changes and additional commitments set forth in the posted correspondence with Stratton Sclavos and with any further corrections and modifications consistent with the proposal that the President determines are appropriate, such signing to be subject to any necessary approvals of the U.S. Department of Commerce; Further resolved [01.48], the President is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to implement the agreements. - List archives can be found at: <http://www.moongroup.com/inet.php> Send 'unsubscribe' in the body to 'list-request@inet-access.net' to leave. Eat sushi frequently. inet@inet-access.net is the human contact address.
OK, am I the only person on this list that hasn't been able to reach ICANN's web site for the last month or so? <joke type="bad" level="really bad"> perhaps it should be www.icannt.org? </joke>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Kuebler, Network Administrator | Plus ca change, mkuebler@diamonex.com | plus c'est la meme chose -------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
For those of you not following this, the following decision means effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over .com (they spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry operation from the registrar operation.
?! uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars? I mean, is ICANN asking to be hauled into court or what? -- Steven J. Sobol/CTO/JustThe.net LLC | sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net SAY IT LOUD: I'M GEEK AND I'M PROUD! | 888.480.4NET (4638) 216.619.2NET (2638) http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net | http://ClevelandProductions.com http://JustThe.net | Powered by Linux, pizza, Coke, Cuervo, and cheap beer.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Steve Sobol wrote:
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
For those of you not following this, the following decision means effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over .com (they spin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry operation from the registrar operation.
?!
uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars?
Registrars are not affected(until NSI decides to raise the rates.) The decision affects the *registry*
participants (3)
-
Mike Kuebler
-
Patrick Greenwell
-
Steve Sobol