Re: [registrars] ICANN Board Meeting - 21-Feb-2006

["Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Mike,

I think the settlement agreement is what concerns all of us
registrars. In that respect I have several requests:

- please ask the Board members to *carefully* study the aspects and
  importance of this decision. I know that some Board members are not
  even aware of the competition issue..

- I have to advise to treat staff information with care. Staff will 
  recommend to sign the deal. In our teleconf with staff we were not 
  able to learn why they have this position. 
  I feel that staff was not prepared for the settlement negotiation
  and certainly did not negotiate a good deal, see
  http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-settlement/msg00149.html

- All Board members should study all posts on the public comment
  forum. Yes, this will take 3 hours for everyone to read. But the
  importance of this matter should be enough justification. For the
  reason mentioned above, I would not rely on a summary prepared by
  staff. Also, if there is a simple pro-against count, the numbers
  will not be accurate due to the paid lobbyists on the forum, see
  http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-settlement/msg00148.html

- I invite you to use my pro-con summary, which I think expresses the
  view of (not only) the registrars 
  http://forum.icann.org/lists/revised-settlement/msg00154.html


In short, the biggest danger we face is an uninformed decision or a
decision that relies on misrepresented information. ICANN's own
mission statement calls for well-informed decisions. 

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS WELL-INFORMED. If you feel that some
Board members are not up to speed, ask them to work on it. This is a
crucial test for ICANN. We must not fail because of misinformation.

Thanks,
Marcus
CORE Council of Registrars




> Dear Registrars:
> 
> I just wanted to advise the Constituency that the Secretariat has
> updated the ICANN website to include all of these dates, including the
> proposed agenda for the 21-Feb-2006 meeting within seven days of that
> meeting as required by the bylaws.
> 
>     *  Review of Public Comments Regarding VeriSign Settlement
> Agreements
>     * Litigation Status Update
>     * Discussion of VeriSign Settlement Agreements
>     * Designation of São Paulo as 2006 Annual Meeting
>     * Consideration of ccNSO's ccPDP Results and Recommendations on
> Proposed ICANN Bylaws Changes
>     * Approval of Contractor to Conduct GNSO Review
>     * Designation of Academic Organization to Select Delegate for
> ICANN's 2006 Nominating Committee
>     * Approval of Director's Expenses
>     * Other Business
> 
> Should anyone have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I
> have heard from at least one registrar regarding the briefing that staff
> provided yesterday. I would hope that these briefing assist the
> respective constituencies in helping formulate comments which they can
> submit via the public forum.  
> 
> I also wish to point out the proposed approval of the contract to
> conduct the GNSO review.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
> 
> 
>