ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]

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

Re: [ga] politicisation of the internet

  • To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, kidsearch <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, RBHauptman@xxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Re: [ga] politicisation of the internet
  • From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:46:08 -0800 (PST)
  • 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=2r6ZtSCWtJ0gRukBBL8UL8P7VI5Qpep2T0NRZl6esbGIAgqe+VGL9q2jvecrnvzLbpPMzMjOn9D+FxHssjKrwhUrwzV2OaF+Ss2R28uTqyCl45R4L4V7R9by6wEhwNa+IoFPthAAR0mLsFWH0fm2HaiW2tKG2bx+o5fNYWWkzeI= ;
  • In-reply-to: <20051214023610.87241.qmail@web52904.mail.yahoo.com>
  • Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Eric,

You earlier asked for examples demonstrating where the
USA Gov. interfered with an ICANN contract and or
policy.

I have to wonder about the degree of DOC influence on
the terms of the proposed ICANN-VeriSign settlement. 
We know that the last amendment to the MOU called for
more "predictable" sources of revenue.  To my
knowledge, the only single "unpredictable" aspect
pertaining to ICANN's revenue stream has been the
up-or-down vote on the budget by the registrar
community.

This last proposed contract saw the elimination of
registrar collective bargaining by way of a process
written into the contract that ended the gTLD
registrar fee approval mechanism.

So, has the US Gov via the DOC interfered an ICANN
contract?  Have they helped to abrogate a collective
bargaining right?
What do you think?

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