[ga] RE: Staff Analysis of Public Comments

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vint,

The Staff document fails to show from where it
gathered the commentary on registrant views.  There
are no footnotes that link to comments tendered, and
quite frankly, what registrants do you know that would
state that a 50% increase over a contract span is
"negligible"?  Sorry to say, but the staff has reached
a bogus conclusion.

The only comments tendered to the public forum that
refer to a "nominal increase in fees" came from
VeriSign's orchestrated PR campaign wherein their
retained professional lobbying firms sent though a
batch of support-the-settlement comments right at the
start of the Vancouver session.  If the staff can't
distinguish between a readily recognizable campaign of
deception and actual registrant sentiments, then
perhaps they need to get out more often.

Please note that I have earlier sent under separate
cover to Mike Palage evidence that lobbying firms were
used to solicit the favorable comment of an IT
professional that appeared in the Forum. 

Also please note the email I earlier sent to Chuck
Gomes:

So I assume that you didn't notice the postings from
David Darlington and from Denevan O'Connell from
Gildea, O'Connell & Darlington -- a public affairs
consulting firm that provides Federal, State and
Municipal Lobbying, Public Relations/Crisis
Management, etc.

... or the posting from Tyler Richter whose current
employer requires him to "Develop and execute media
and grassroots strategy and tactics for local,
regional and national public affairs campaigns."

...or the posting from the Fekel Group's Research
Director Brian Aufmuth.  His firm states:  "We are
experts at "framing" issues to ensure not only maximum
exposure but the best possible, and positive, media
coverage"
 
... or the post from Marcus Dell'Artino of the
lobbying firm Public Policy Partners
 
... or the post from Chris Faulkner whose Faulkner
Strategies company is a national consulting firm
specializing in advocacy, strategy etc.

just a coincidence I suppose that they were all posted
at moreorless the same time with basically the same
message :)

Vint, VeriSign is abusing the Public Comment Forum
process and is playing games with the Board...  

Best wishes,
Danny

--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> We posted these so people can comment on the summary
> - you should make your
> views known. Staff have talked to a lot of
> constituents and it may well be
> that the majority had the opinion expressed. 
> 
> Vint
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 11:37 AM
> To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Staff Analysis of Public Comments
> 
> Vint,  
> 
> I'm quoting from the Staff Analysis of Public
> Comments:  
> "Regarding registrants, there was some expression
> that there might be some
> negative effects due to the potential price
> increases, but, the majority
> across constituencies expressed that the increase in
> cost was negligible
> when compared to the value of a domain name
> registration."
>
http://www.icann.org/topics/vrsn-settlement/comments-analysis-11dec05.pdf
> 
> I really have to ask, is the Staff reading the same
> comments that I have
> read?  This analysis is certainly as erroneous as
> the Staff Q&A documents!
> What's going on with your staff... are they
> deliberately trying to mislead
> the Board?
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> 


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