<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
No wet
noodles available at the moment. :)
Chuck
Well, that's why
you're there, Chuck, to straighten me out! :-)
As I've said before, I'm
not a web guru (a hell of an HTML
guru is another thing!), and it's a good
week that I can go
through anything like this without getting at least
something
wrong. What has come out of this, though, is an excellent
analysis of the antitrust and anti-competitive results of any
close
registry-registrar tie, and that's the one from Robert
Gaetano. I
don't mind making public mistakes -- what are
you going to do to me --
beat me with a wet noodle?
Bill Lovell
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
All registrars
have the same access to the SRS. There is no difference. The NSI
Registrar accesses the SRS via the Internet just like all the
others.Chuck
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
Bill,I don't
have a clue what you are talking about.
Chuck:
And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
reports
(at least at the momen). We're talking about the
NSI/Verisign monopoly (or
at least a temporary one) on information.
How do all other registrars have the
same access as you do?
Bill Lovell
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
>>>
|