<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
Bill,
I don't have a clue what you are talking
about. VeriSign reports it's results quarterly and those reports are on
the VeriSign web site.
Chuck
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
What does so called SPAM have
to do with separation of Registry and
Registrar?
Chuck: There is
nothing "so-called" about SPAM. I believe just about every ISP
known
now has to spend mucho bucks setting up filters against it. If
there's anything more
annoying than that it would probably be yellow
stickies and blue fonts.
What does marketing have to do
with separation of Registry and Registrar?
Like I
said.
No conclusive evidence has ever
been produced to substantiate the rumor you mention, undoubtedly because it
is just a rumor. Again, this has nothing to do with Registry/Registrar
separation because the NSI Registrar has the same exact access to the SRS as
all other registrars.
Show us the document which says that - or at least that NSI doesn't have
a head start in
which to add to its domain name horde. (How many domain
names does NSI/Verisign
now have registered? Want to tell us? I think
the portal to that information got closed.)
(So how come this isn't
blue?)
I'm still waiting for facts instead of rumors and suspicions.
I am perfectly comfortable with you having a your own negative opinions
about the current situation but I am not all comfortable with you making
charges that are false.
Um, Verisign has the
"facts" cuddled to its breast. When someone has the gumption
to
sue and discovery starts, well, then, maybe we'll all know. The
evidence by which NSI
(rightly) won the Lockheed - Martin "skunkworks"
case in the 9th circuit never got into that.
And thank you for
including my whole thing. I can't yet get my browser to show it!
:-)
Bill
Lovell
Chuck
The bloody SPAM is enough by itself.
And as an attorney, I know
how "Chinese walls" work -- they
don't. How it was that "marketing"
ever got into the purely
technical issue of running a root and recording
domain name
registrations is beyond me, except for the fact that NSI
has NEVER
done anything without first thought to its bottom line.
The "examples"
pertinent to this issue itself are of course within the walls
of
Verisign, so I would invite you to provide any examples which show
that anything I have suggested is not true. Hawking and
registering domain
names is a marketing function, with a bit of
techno-bit twiddling attached;
running a registry of who has
registered what so that the DNS function
can be authoritatively
carried out is pure techno-bookkeeping, and should
never be found in
the same basket as marketing. They are philosophically
different
functions that have an inherent conflict of interest, and any mix of
them is quite anti-competitive in that every registration then
ultimately ends
up with the registry, thereby giving that registry an
unfair advantage in its
own hawking efforts if it is permitted then to
tout its own registration services
as to every conceivable variation
of a "hot" name, which Verisign (and, e.g.,
register.com, but you see
register.com does not have the whole pile as does
Verisign) does
interminably. I am not an antitrust lawyer, but I've studied
it,
and I was not born yesterday.
Rumor has it that Verisign has also tracked WHOIS queries, and when one
looks like a "hot" one (read "marketable") it has immediately snatched
it up
for itself, and although this also seems to be the practice in a
lot of other places,
a look at the domain names that Verisign/NSI has
registered to itself would
make it among the biggest, if not the
biggest, cybersquatter on the net (were it
not for the loophole in the
law that exempts registrars from that law -- a
loophole about which I
would like to know -- and intend to find out -- just
how much
Verisign/NSI had a hand in getting into that abominable law.
Chuck, no one out here with half a brain can fail to figure out what
Verisign/NSI -- of whom I am forced against my will to be a customer
if I'm to have a domain name -- does. Verisign/NSI past practices
have,
I suspect, conditioned a good bit of the public to accept at
once the idea
that Verisign/NSI would in fact be carrying out exactly
what I've said.
And thank you for the email; it has moved me to
respond, and suggested
that, since this issue is before the Congress
right now, I should immediately
copy this whole thing off to Sen. Ron
Wyden (D-OR), so excuse me
while I take care of that chore. Maybe that
will help put an end to this
farce.
Bill Lovell
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
Bill,Please
give me an example that proves that the current separation between
Registry and Registrar does not work.Chuck
Well, let's hope so. To begin
with, paper work "separation" between registry and registrar
functions has always been a gross fiction -- it never works and
should never have been
contemplated. What do you think happens
when the registry type says to the registrar type,
"Let's do
lunch?" I never deal directly with NSI (Verisign) in registering a
domain name,
but only when the necessary paper work trickles out
of my registration application to some
other registrar.
Even so, I guess that makes me a "customer" of Verisign and gives
them a crack in the law
that allows them to send me their SPAM.
That's one reason why there's an incompatibility
between registry
and registrar functions -- registries should twiddle bits, and that's
all --
a registry should be hawking nothing. (For our
nonUSA people to whom the slang term
"hawking" is not familiar, it
just means aggressive marketing and that sort of thing.)
(Once our current more important issues get resolved, SPAM,
privacy, security, etc., will
be my next projects.)
(The concession in par. 2 below solves nothing as to the problem in
par. 1.)
Bill Lovell
Bruce James wrote:
""The major sticking point arose from a letter that
the Justice Department sent to the Department of Commerce warning
that the deal would harm competition in the nascent business of
registering Internet names, people familiar with the negotiations
said. The letter opposed the so-called vertical integration of
VeriSign's managing of the ".com" database and registering new names
in the database, sources said.""
""Commerce officials were said to be asking for
more concessions from VeriSign, such as giving up control of the
".net" domain sooner than 2005.""
/Bruce
----- Original Message -----
Sent: May 16, 2001
07:46
Subject: [ga] VeriSign May
Ditch Domain Deal VeriSign
May Ditch Domain Deal
By Aaron
Pressman
May 15 2001 04:57 PM
PDT
The Commerce Department's
review of the agreement that extends the computer security firm's
control of the '.com' domain has the company thinking twice,
sources say.
MORE at:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
/Bruce
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|