RE: [ga] WLS

[Mason Cole <MasonC@Snapnames.com>]

>> In terms of strategy with the legal mumbo-jumbo, though, it will work 
>> as well on the board as did IOD's same tactics.  Whoever wrote the 
>> stuff about how SnapNames is required to bring along its 
>> pre-registered customers, or else they will sue ICANN, should look 
>> over how well that played in Marina Del Rey the last time that tune 
>> was heard. . . .  In fact, those snapbacks can remain post-WLS 
>> snapbacks and not be breached at all.

A clarification:  Please note that SnapBack customers will not be brought
along, as is mentioned here.  Under VeriSign's proposal, names for which
there exist SnapBacks will not be allowed into the WLS system.  All must
compete over those names as they do today.  Thus is "grandfathering" an
unfortunate misnomer.  And, as you mention, SnapBacks remain SnapBacks
post-WLS.  What would constitute tortious interference would be to allow WLS
orders on those names for which there are currently paid-up contracts
(SnapBack orders) on specific names.

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html