RE: [ga] ICANN Ombudsman??
Disclosure - I am not speaking on behalf of the Board.
Answers to your questions:
1) Despite the acknowledged unpopularity of the service, I think the
previous ICANN Board got it right. I do not believe they had the authority
to unreasonably withhold approval of the service. I think the recent
California decision supports this conclusion. Coming from the registrar
constituency, the eventual implementation of the WLS will have a negative
impact on all registrars, small/medium/large, but VeriSign has a contractual
right to offer this new service.
2) Because of the unresolved nature of the SiteFinder issue, I will defer
commenting on the specifics of your request.
3) I will talk to Terri about the Pool.com lawsuit. However, I was able to
get it online from pool.com's website if I am not mistaken. The fact that
the material is available online I believe mitigates the fact that ICANN is
trying to hide anything. Looking at the website I didn't see any of the
Davies litigation either. I will see what can be done to help get the
4) Do not know about this one. Give me a couple of days to look into.
George, the new Board is evolving and heading in the right direction. I know
there are a lot of skeptics out there that have a lot of reasons not to
believe me. I guess history will be the ultimate judge if I was a
constructive Board director or sheep. However, anyone that knows me knows
that I am not a sheep :-)
Michael D. Palage
From: George Kirikos [mailto:gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 11:57 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN Ombudsman??
--- "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am always listening :-)
How about more "doing", in addition to the "listening"? Here's a list
of things that need to be done (some easier than others, but all fairly
straightforward, and popular):
1) Observe the consensus in the GNSO, and abandon WLS. Everyone makes
mistakes, and ICANN Board's acknowledgement that it erred would 1) save
a lot of legal fees, and 2) gain popularity and greater faith that
"bottoms-up consensus building" isn't just marketing spin.
2) Force VeriSign to return the audited gross revenues from SiteFinder
3) Post the Pool.com lawsuit material (made a low priority if #1 above
4) Publish the annual reports of VeriSign Registry's R&D, as per
Appendix W of the agreement:
(where they pledged to spend $200 million on Universal WHOIS, etc.)
5) ..... (others can fill this in, probably stuff like elected Board
members, At-Large, etc.)
> Although I may not always agree with you and the other GA members
> I am listening, because much like yourself I will be returning
> to my humble origins with the huddled masses in the not
> to distance future.
What better way to go out than in a blaze of glory, having accomplished
something? :) The Board members who act like sheep and "huddled" in
fear are forgotten pretty quickly, as they're essentially anonymous
slaves! Better to not be on the Board than be a slave. Whether one
agrees or disagrees with Karl's positions on individual issues (I know
I respectfully disagree with him on some), at least he displayed
independent thought, and engaged the public in his decision-making.