RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNames stats

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>]

Wrong.  The fact that we entered into a license agreement simply means
that we have rights to use the technology if the WLS is implemented.
That allowed us to more accurately predict our costs in preparing a
proposal but in no way does that mean it is a fait accompli.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:45 PM
> To: ga
> Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> SnapNames stats
> 
> 
> "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > These kind of decisions would have to be made by our 
> business people.
> > And as you probably already know, in order to be able to 
> most accurately
> > provide a proposal with cost information, we already entered into an
> > agreement with SnapNames.
> 
> In other words, this registry WLS is not really a
> "proposal" but a fait accompli? 
> 
> This appears to be an illegal _lottery_ schema.  What do
> you have to say about that. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

smime.p7s