RE: Re[4]: [ga] Draft Resolution

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Dassa,
On 08:35 19/03/01, Dassa said:
>With non-profit entities, there would not be a garnering of profit for 
>localised
>consumption as we currently see with the commercial entities.  You would 
>rather
>we have large commercial empire builders?

I think you are right if you go by your own experience of a non-profit SLD 
service. But why Stratton Sclavos' secretary would spend a few seconds in 
wrting VP Vint a few paragraphson the non-profit nature of the .org 
manager, about the $M 5 given to it and the M$ 200 in an R&D joint 
development plan with the iCANN and about the politically correct arguments 
to use to justifiy the ".org" transfer and changes, if the non profit 
organization was not to be in a way or another to be controlled by the iCANN?

The deal to me simple: VeriSign takes over the Registrar industry, iCANN 
get the funding to become a stand-alone organization through the .rog 
revenues and special registrant relations while they both together lock the 
TLD industry under their common control. Stratton is the boss and VP Vint 
is to take it or leave it. So confortable for the BoD (no more decision to 
take) that we may expect them to say "it is supported" and "has 
advantages". I would not be surprised Louis Touton is the President of the 
non profit to set-up and Joe Sims the legal advisor.

Frankly this would be excellent managing. But this would be pure "market 
monopoly". This is why if they do not have the GAC support one way or 
another today, they head towards an anti-trust case (please remember Len 
Lindon case: your Australian Judge refused it but his comments show he 
fully grasped the situation. He objected on the choice of the defendant and 
on procedural aspects).

Mike Roberts' letter to the Govs was a good move: "we ask you to review 
your own ccTLD manager, we take care of VeriSign..."  The ".biz" take away 
is also good test of the DoC and Congress/Senate.

The problem is that this Big Brother under building will not stand the 
review of the Govs, Laws and industry. So we head towards major network 
instability. It is also to think that the Nasdaq may not like it when it 
understands this risk of instability.

I must hower acknowledge it is in full line with VeriSign's intended policy 
described to its stock holders. Today there is an obvious consensus for 
stability between SAIC, IBM and ATT under the supervision of the DoC. I 
fear that it may not survive the "too much demanded" approach of VeriSign. 
ATT and IBM are for a long in business and have an experience and a vision 
VeriSign may not have yet.

Jefsey


--
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