<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 04:07:00PM +1300, DPF wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 17:46:33 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2001 at 02:09:19PM +1300, DPF wrote:
>
> >> I realise that but it would be a simple matter for ICANN and NSI to
> >> simply agree to extend that date until say July 10 2001 which is the
> >> path of minimum change until proper consultation has happened.
> >
> >Indeed, that might be possible, but I don't think it is simple. Note
> >that NSI has to make decisions with possible other entities concerning
> >the sale or whatever of the registrar; the USG must be involved.
>
> Well NSI will be gambling with a lot at stake if they refuse to agree
> to a one off 2 month extension to the deadline. We have
> representatives from NSI here so perhaps they could comment whether as
> a matter of good faith they would be amenable to such an extension so
> that the DNSO can properly consult on the issues raised.
>
> >> Well actually nothing has to happen by May 10. There is nothing at
> >> all wrong with sticking to the original contract and having the
> >> registry contract expire on 10 November 2003 as NSI wish to continue
> >> to be a Registrar.
> >
> >You have missed something crtically important, I believe. NSI *will* sell
> >the registrar by May 10 if nothing else is decided, and that will
> >effectively lock in NSI as the registry for all three domains in
> >perpetuity.
>
> No no no. I have just reread both the original agreement and the
> proposed change. Under the original agreement NSI only get the
> registry extended until November 2007. Section 22(a) provides that
> there will be a successor registry and 22(b) merely says NSI is not to
> be disadvantaged in tendering for this by virtue of being the
> incumbent.
Note I said "effectively". Read 22 (e). If NSI is not selected, they
can take ICANN to court.
> So let's be very clear - NSI after 2007 has to compete against other
> entities to remain the registry. If they can not provide the best
> price and/or service they have agreed that they may lose the registry.
fat chance.
> Now this is totally changed in the staff proposal. D(4) states that
> there shall be a presumption that NSI keep the *.com registry for ever
> and ever as long as they comply with the agreements.
It's a little difficult to follow, but I read that as a single renewal.
The contract doesn't say anything about "perpetuity". But it is
legalese, and I don't know if I fully understand it.
> So in fact it is only if ICANN agrees to these changes that NSI will
> have a presumptive right to *.com in perpetuity.
>
> Now that *may* be a good thing but I'd like more than a few weeks to
> consider things before signing away *.com for ever.
>
> >NSI is not going to let the registry contract expire --
> >that is far more important to them than the registrar -- the registrar
> >has in fact been losing market share at a percipitous rate, and its
> >value is problematic. Moreover, from Stratton Sclavos letter to Vint
> >Cerf:
> >
> > Earlier this year, VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself
> > of the assets and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to
> > operate the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least
> > 2007.
>
> Thanks for this. At the moment though I am seeing lots of benefits
> for NSI - they get to keep being a Registrar plus they gain the rights
> for *.com pretty much for ever. I am not seeing a lot of benefit for
> the Internet Community.
>
> By 2007 the *.com registry could be in the hundreds of millions and a
> competitive tender for the registry service could see massive price
> reductions from the current US$6.
Possibly. Another quite reasonable scenario is that robust competition
at the registry level will have altered the DNS landscape beyond
recognition, and .com will be a boring and passe place where all the
good names are taken. The fact is, you are just guessing. *No one* --
not you, not me, not Verisign, not ICANN -- can do any more than hazard
guesses about the competitive situation 6 years from now. It is very
important to keep in mind that the market share of the NSI registrar has
suffered an amazing drop -- from 100% to like 40% in less than 2 years.
In any case, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that
Verisign is ever going to lose .com, under either scenario, unless they
want to give it up.
> > I want to reiterate our willingness to see this commitment through
> > to its completion. Under this commitment, on the part of both
> > parties, we would expect and intend to continue to operate the
> > Registries for .com, .net, and .org at least through 2007.
> >
> >No matter what, NSI is going to keep the registry for .com for the
> >forseeable future. The issue is whether .org (and possibly .net, later
> >on) can be pried from their greedy fingers.
>
> Under the current agreement they can keep all three until 2007 but
> beyond that it is a open slather for who becomes the registry.
I'm sorry, but that just seems incredibly naive to me...
[...]
> >Yep, it is. There is a formal request to the NC to solicit input, and
> >if I were you I would be composing it right now.
>
> Can you please (serious request) point to the URL where the Board have
> asked the Names Council for input and where the Names Council have
> asked for input?
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00881.html
> Is the GA the preferred form of input or is it the
> web based forum or will there be a dedicated working group discussion
> or should we just e-mail our thoughts to all 19 Names Council members?
Louis Touton sent a notice to the NC; the NC has to decide the best
course.
--
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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
- References:
- [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can ask substantive questions
- From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: David Farrar <david@farrar.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: DPF <david@farrar.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: DPF <david@farrar.com>
- Re: [ga] let's focus on making sure that, in the various forums, we can as k substantive questions
- From: DPF <david@farrar.com>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|