RE: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period on the proposed Verisign agreement

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ross:

I agree with this statement, and I have already forwarded Bruce's
original email to the Board list.

My apologizes for being so silent and not providing an update of Monday
board call. However, living in the direct path of Hurricane Wilma has
left me with no power for 4 days and counting (estimate time by power
company for restoration Nov 14th) and no broadband connection. However,
I am making due with a generator I run about 8 hours a day and a dial-up
Internet connection.

I am preparing a statement in connection with the proposed settlement
agreement and will be making that public shortly. I persoanlly hope that
the ICANN Board will provide the community with the opportunity to voice
their concerns in person in Vancouver. When this matter was first
brought to my attention I specifically referenced ICANN staff to the
procedure that was employed back in 2001 in connection with the last
VeriSign contract renegotiation process. 

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage
 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:07 PM
To: Bruce Tonkin
Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Request to extend the 24 day comment period on
the proposed Verisign agreement


Given that it has taken me the last three days just to get a hard-copy 
bound up so that I can read it, coupled with the fact that most 
registrars were only afforded an overview of this document today, the 24

days seems extremely inadequate. Accommodating this request would be a 
small, but valued affirmation that ICANN the Entity is still willing to 
consider and act upon the input of ICANN the Community.

Please include Tucows Inc. as a signatory to this request.


Bruce Tonkin wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> ICANN has opened at 24 day comment period, which I assume starts on 24

> October 2005, and finishes on Friday 18 Nov 2005.
> 
> I note from the ICANN bylaws - Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2:
> 
> "Where both practically feasible and consistent with the relevant 
> policy development process, an in-person public forum shall also be 
> held for discussion of any proposed policies as described in Section 
> 6(1)(b) of this Article, prior to any final Board action."
> 
> (see: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III)
> 
> Now I realize we can argue whether this is a policy issue or not, but 
> I think the spirit of the bylaws is that a major decision like this 
> should allow for an in-person meeting.
> 
> I also note that Verisign and ICANN have been discussing this for 
> about a year.
> 
> I think it is reasonable that registrars and other members of the GNSO

> community have the opportunity to discuss the proposed agreement in an

> "in-person public Forum".,  The most practical time to do this would 
> be the upcoming ICANN meeting from the 30 Nov to 4 Dec 05.
> 
> I therefore propose to send the following statement to the ICANN 
> Board. I would like registrars to sign-up to this statement as 
> individual registrars (not enough time to run the formal registrars 
> constituency voting process).  The more people that sign-on to this, 
> the more weight the statement will hold.
> 
> Please advise via the mailing list, or via email to me if you would 
> like to be added as a signatory.
> 
> 
> STATEMENT:
> 
> "We the undersigned registrars, request that the public comment period

> on the proposed agreement with Verisign be extended until Sunday 4 Dec

> 2005 so as to allow opportunities for in-person public discussions 
> during the upcoming ICANN meeting in Vancouver.  This we believe is 
> consistent with the spirit of Article III, Section 6, paragraph 2 of 
> the ICANN bylaws, which states that: "Where both practically feasible 
> and consistent with the relevant policy development process, an 
> in-person public forum shall also be held for discussion of any 
> proposed policies as described in Section 6(1)(b) of this Article, 
> prior to any final Board action."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> Melbourne IT
> 
>