[council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec

[Alick Wilson]

All

I absolutely support the position espoused by Tony below.

Specifically:

'ICANNs duty is to the whole community, which means they must never give way
to pressure that results in a bad deal being signed because of time
constraints.
 
'No deal is preferable to a bad deal, and its vital that adequate time is
allowed to ensure this one results in benefits to the broad community. It
would also provide an additional opportunity to progress this issue with
full community involvement.'

Any time constraints are self imposed. There appears to be a truce in the
war between Verisign and ICANN. There is a will by both parties to settle
the matter. The staff and the Board did not see fit to consult with the
community during the negotiations with Verisign. Fortunately, it is not too
late to remedy this failure.

I will be on the line at the Council meeting tomorrow (my final meeting as a
Councilor) to add my verbal support to this if necessary.

Alick


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes at bt.com
Sent: Friday, 2 December 2005 3:45 p.m.
To: Niklas_Lagergren at mpaa.org; marilynscade at hotmail.com;
philip.sheppard at aim.be; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; council at icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec


Niklas/All
 
Whilst the ISPCP didn't formally discuss the resolution during our
constituency meeting we did update our statement on the VeriSign issue and
will be posting this shortly. However it appears appropriate to make you
aware that the ISPCP share the BC view that no decision should be made by
the Board prior to the Wellington meeting. Discussion across the past few
days has emphasised the serious level of concern over this proposal, and its
our view that ICANNs duty is to the whole community, which means they must
never give way to pressure that results in a bad deal being signed because
of time constraints.
 
No deal is preferable to a bad deal, and its vital that adequate time is
allowed to ensure this one results in benefits to the broad community. It
would also provide an additional opportunity to progress this issue with
full community involvement.
 
Tony

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org on behalf of
Niklas_Lagergren at mpaa.org 
	Sent: Fri 02/12/2005 01:16 
	To: marilynscade at hotmail.com; philip.sheppard at aim.be;
owner-council at gnso.icann.org; council at icann.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
	
	

	While the IPC agrees with the points raised in the preamble, we
think the timeline set in the resolution is a bit unrealistic.  The Board
needs to act in the best interest of the corporation.  They have a fiduciary
duty to do so.  Delaying action until March may be too long and not in the
best interest of getting the lawsuits settled. We are also not convinced by
the merits of a PDP on the issues mentioned in paragraph 2 but will not
oppose the suggested wording if all other constituencies wish to keep it.
	
	Our proposed amendments are reproduced in attachment.
	
	Niklas
	
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com]
	Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34
	To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council at gnso.icann.org; council at icann.org
	Subject: Re: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
	
	Proposed amendment to BC resolution.
	
	I have heard from one or two of you that you would prefer to
separate the resolution into two segments. I believe this is easy to do, and
can support that. . I urge all constituencies to discuss this resolution. It
is the BC intent to call for a supporting vote for the resolution, with the
idea of separating the call for the PDP/issues report from the board
resolution.
	-----Original Message-----
	From: philip.sheppard at aim.be
	Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57
	To:council at icann.org
	Subject: [council] Draft resolution Verisign for Council 2 Dec
	
	Council members,
	please find attached from the Bc a  proposed draft Council motion on
the
	Verisign settlement. This follows the constituency presentations at
the
	Verisign review meeting and proposes the board delay adoption until
the
	council has considered the GNSO related aspects arising from the
	settlement.
	
	We hope this provides a full day for Constituencies to consider the
	proposed motion before Council might adopt it.
	
	Philip
	
	Regards,
	Marilyn Cade