<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- To: svl@nrw.net, svl@nrw.net, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com, karl@CaveBear.com, jcohen@shapirocohen.com, phil.davidson@bt.com, f.fitzsimmons@att.net, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca, mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, hans@icann.org, shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp, quaynor@ghana.com, roberts@icann.org, helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de, linda@icann.org, vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
- From: "Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>
- Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:38:34 +0100
- CC: ga@dnso.org, ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org, core@corenic.org
- In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.2.20010309122001.07685828@shoe.reston.mci.net>
- Organization: CSL GmbH
- References: <01K0YJC5E4YWA0UDLO@shoe.reston.mci.net>
- Reply-to: svl@nrw.net
- Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Dear Sir,
I am not completely convinced of your argument even recognizing
the value, because I learned that things in life tend to be more
complicated, lets say have more than one simple dimension.
But if I agree on your interpretation I must ask me and you why
ICANN staff introduced exactly that argument ( reduction of
marketshare of VeriSign ) to justify the change of the contract ?
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-
topic.htm
snip-------------
B. CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT
...
Perhaps most relevantly, VeriSign's once-dominant market position
has been severely eroded. VeriSign's share of total registrations has
fallen to about 50%,
its share of new registrations to under 40%, and its share of net
new registrations (taking into account non-renewals and transfers)
to an even lower level. This
trend appears to be continuing in 2001.
...
snap-----------
It seems not logical for me to allow the argument only from one
point of view.
siegfried
On 9 Mar 01, at 12:21, vint cerf wrote:
> the success here had nothing to do with divestiture but rather to do with
> opening of competition; competition would continue and would even be
> enhanced in the new proposal as .org would be spun off, .net would be
> spun off, and .com would remain. Since the erosion of market share
> was not a consequence of spinning off the registrar but of allowing
> other registrars to register in .com, .net and .org, there does not
> seem to be much value in spinning off the registrar.
>
> vint
>
> At 09:34 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >about the stats ? not really ( I was a statistician half my life and
> >know that can only trust on my on stats :-))
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|