RE: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

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

No, I suspect that one was initiated by us.  Keep in mind that I was not
directly involved in the negotiations.

Chuck

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Paul Svensson [mailto:paul@svensson.org] 
Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 11:03 AM
To:	Gomes, Chuck
Cc:	ga@dnso.org
Subject:	RE: Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions

On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>VeriSign extortion?  Most of the changes in the new agreements were
proposed
>by ICANN.  Your accusations don't make sense in light of that fact.


Chuck,
is this true also for the change allowing Verisign/NSI to continue
operating as a registrar ?

	/Paul


> -----Original Message-----
>From: 	William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] 
>Sent:	Monday, March 19, 2001 6:02 AM
>To:	Alexander Svensson
>Cc:	ga@dnso.org
>Subject:	Re[4]: [ga] Re: Board descisions
>
>Hello Alexander,
>
>Monday, March 19, 2001, 2:52:37 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
>
>> Hi William!
>
>>>> If it was
>>>> possible to circumvent the divestiture requirements in
>>>> the old agreement (II.23) by opening a reselling business,
>>>> this could be VeriBad, and there can be no doubt VeriSign
>>>> would do it if the courts allowed it to.
>
>>> I don't see this as a bad thing.  No different than any other large
>>> company doing the same thing.
>>>
>>> They start from scratch.
>
>> That's the question. If they license the trademark (thanks
>> to Bret Fausett for pointing out this possibility) and
>> have a strategic alliance (see James Seng's post), things
>> could be basically unchanged for NSI customers.
>
>If they do this, if they do that.
>
>If they do this, we pretty much have the status quo, nothing really
>changes, and they still have indirect control over the registry whose
>market share is diving faster and faster every quarter.
>
>We shouldn't give them additional benefits, which place them in an
>even STRONGER position, and with many known and real detrimental
>effects, simply because there is a chance they may show themselves to
>be the slimy despicable bastards we all already know them to be and
>find some way to circumvent the contract.
>
>I suggest that they are a lot less likely to do that, because its not
>just ICANN who is a party to the original contract, but the US
>Government, who may react to pressure from Congress to take action
>should NSI try and circumvent the contract provisions in such a way.
>
>Verisign/NSI would risk losing the entire ball of wax?
>
>Sorry, but I think these are mostly empty threats being used by
>Verisign/NSI to extort concessions from ICANN and remove the USG as a
>governing factor from the contracts.
>
>Extortionists should not be conceded to.
--
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