ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract

  • To: Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 18:04:56 -0700 (PDT)
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=uuvqsuD4FY0fX/mVBTMT0Nb15C6gCnMvaF7RYW6OHn9BmeANpiJzwNiy5Fjs4cFYGz4HPloGuHwzWbCBM/wbiPOLMEnRozjEeS2rO9NJgQJ5MWz2nWN79BWKyVCYZRdfPYPJc9OnUaSqgHrzzXVOKlslmSbeX5NEwrdoY3zWgqY= ;
  • In-reply-to: <7.0.1.0.2.20060802175014.040eb008@veni.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Veni,

I'm sure that you realize that it's sometimes easy to
overlook a detail.  I hadn't realized that Jeff had
unsubscribed from the list.  By the same token, you
and your fellow Board members also all overlooked an
important detail -- you approved the .com contract
without realizing that VeriSign had failed to submit a
Renewal Proposal that included operational details,
proposed improvements, etc. as required by their
contract:

"25. Procedure for Subsequent Agreement.  A. Registry
Operator may, no earlier than twenty-four and no later
than eighteen months prior to the Expiration Date,
submit a written proposal to ICANN for the extension
of this Agreement for an additional term of four years
(the "Renewal Proposal"). The Renewal Proposal shall
contain a detailed report of the Registry Operator's
operation of the Registry TLD and include a
description of any additional Registry Services,
proposed improvements to Registry Services, or changes
in price or other terms of service.?  See
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm

So, OK, the Board made a mistake... how does this
problem get handled?  I'm not sure that it's fair to
ask .info, .biz and .org to now be bound by a
requirement that didn't apply to .com.  Is this
something for the IRP to look at?  Can the .com
agreement be scuttled on the basis of a failure to
follow due process?

I'd be happy to hear your view.

Best regards,
Danny

--- Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At 04:01 PM 02.8.2006 '?.'  -0400, Neuman, Jeff
> wrote:
> >FYI, this was not previously posted to the list
> although Danny
> >referenced it in a previous post
> 
> This is not the first time something like that has
> been happening.
> 
> May be next time would be good that Danny posts the
> response of the 
> people he corresponds with, and then his comments.
> Otherwise, if 
> someone is not subscribed to the GA list, he or she
> would never know 
> what comments on his behalf are being made.
> 
> Hope all of you will have good August vacations!
> 
> veni
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>