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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Veni,

When parties violate their contractual obligation to
abide by the "Procedure for Subsequent Agreement",
this is an issue that impacts the entirety of the
Internet community.  Please stay focused on the real
problem (which is of much greater import than your
views on my netiquette).

I have asked an ICANN Board member (yourself), in good
faith, for guidance on how to best deal with a serious
matter that now concerns four different registry
operators.  I look forward to your constructive
remarks.

Best wishes,
Danny



--- Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 
> 


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