RE: [ga] ICANN Ombudsman??
- To: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Ombudsman??
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 22:08:09 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <DHEIJCFHPEMGGMBMIIDAOEAKDDAA.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Answers to your questions:
> 1) Despite the acknowledged unpopularity of the service, I think the
> previous ICANN Board got it right. I do not believe they had the
> to unreasonably withhold approval of the service. I think the recent
> California decision supports this conclusion. Coming from the
> constituency, the eventual implementation of the WLS will have a
> impact on all registrars, small/medium/large, but VeriSign has a
> right to offer this new service.
I read the injunction decision, and the judge made several glaring
errors in fact (e.g. not understanding the nature of 'consensus' as a
"super-majority", when he repeated the 'mantra' that it would give
registrars a veto over new services). Wrong, wrong, wrong. A jury, that
is paying more attention to their civic duties than a judge who is
probably juggling dozens of cases at a time, will hopefully not make
the same mistake, and will see WLS as the cash grab and
anti-competitive offering it is, with a sham of a process. It wasn't
just the Registrars who voted against WLS --- ALL Constituencies (save
for the gTLD Registry Constituency) that voted were AGAINST WLS, and
would feel a negative impact (it's just that the Registrars, due to
their contracts, have the best ability to sue).
> 2) Because of the unresolved nature of the SiteFinder issue, I will
> commenting on the specifics of your request.
That's fair -- at least ICANN stopped it. But, go all the way and
finish the job -- if ICANN ties its future too closely to VeriSign's
bad acts, we saw what happened when network operators "routed around"
> 3) I will talk to Terri about the Pool.com lawsuit. However, I was
> able to
> get it online from pool.com's website if I am not mistaken. The fact
> the material is available online I believe mitigates the fact that
> ICANN is
> trying to hide anything. Looking at the website I didn't see any of
> Davies litigation either. I will see what can be done to help get the
> documents online.
Thanks. Dan Halloran said it would be forthcoming months ago, but it's
not up. Folks wouldn't need a copy of the Statement of Claim (as that's
already public) -- interested folks would desire ICANN's response to it
(Defendant's Answer), and any subsequent documents...
> 4) Do not know about this one. Give me a couple of days to look into.
Thanks. A few years worth would be invaluable, to see how far VeriSign
has come in its commitment. Indeed, the "solution" I've pushed for is
for VeriSign to drop WLS, and in exchange VeriSign gets to reduce its
spending commitment from $200 million (which was negotiation in the
"boom" days) to a more realistic level (which would offset the WLS
monopoly profits and consumer harm). A creative Board would consider
solutions like this, which would get it some positive PR...
> George, the new Board is evolving and heading in the right direction.
> I know
> there are a lot of skeptics out there that have a lot of reasons not
> believe me. I guess history will be the ultimate judge if I was a
> constructive Board director or sheep. However, anyone that knows me
> that I am not a sheep :-)
I'm all for the win-win-win solutions -- that's what "bottom-up
consensus" helps to ensure. :) (see above) If ICANN was successful, I'd
be defending it more (usually it's the left-wing fanatics that are
attacking organizations like ICANN, not conservative pro-business
people like myself [or the International Chamber of Commerce], who
usually stay out of "politics" as being a waste of time). I find it
ironic that some right-wing pro-business types are taking the same
position as Communist China when it comes to ICANN!
The proof is all in the "doing", though.....