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@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Niklas_Lagergren@mpaa.org Sent: Fri 02/12/2005 01:16 To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@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@hotmail.com] Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34 To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@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@aim.be Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@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
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of tony.ar.holmes@bt.com Sent: Friday, 2 December 2005 3:45 p.m. To: Niklas_Lagergren@mpaa.org; marilynscade@hotmail.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@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@gnso.icann.org on behalf of Niklas_Lagergren@mpaa.org Sent: Fri 02/12/2005 01:16 To: marilynscade@hotmail.com; philip.sheppard@aim.be; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@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@hotmail.com] Sent: jeudi 1 décembre 2005 21:34 To: Philip Sheppard; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; council@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@aim.be Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:54:57 To:council@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
participants (2)
-
Alick Wilson -
tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com