RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, I don't think it's the potential $B that's the real concern. As I
stated earlier, NET and ORG are two new balls being put in play, with this
contract. This separates them from COM. I'll also tell you what else it
does; once those charters begin being enforced again, that may create the
legal environment to fence trademark holders within those charters. The
problem is, if this is any part of the intent, it may be "day late ...
dollar short", as precedents and expectations have already been set. Those
may be poisoned wells, for that purpose.

What the contract does is to hand over ORG and NET to someone else (yet to
be detirmined). That's millions of dollars of business each. Even, if they
are less than COM. Granted that, many are also COM registrants who wanted to
make sure that "whitehouse.com" doesn't happen to them.

Once DOC gives their imprimatur, the next question is "whom will run the
registries for NET and ORG?" (I strongly suggest that ARIN should run NET.
ARIN needs the revenue to run IN-ADDR.ARPA and other activity that they
should be doing [but aren't] and the NET charter, as written, fits into what
they are doing [infrastructure support] anyway).

This leaves ORG. Note that ORG has a "miscellaneous" charter and is largely
believed to be non-profit. That is a perception, it may not be correct.
However, the registry does not have to be non-profit, in order to register
non-profit entities. I note that, just because it doesn't fit into either
the COM or NET charter, doesn't mean that it must be a non-profit. EDU is a
case in point here. It would not prevent NEW.NET from applying to run ORG,
for another example.

The other question is associated with the transfer of assets of NET and
ORG.[BTW, I regret that MHSC doesn't have the resources to take advantage of
this new development and that is the only reason I am pointing these items
out in public, rather than acting upon them in private]. These TLDs have
established market-share, registrants, and revenue. In short, they are
ready-built businesses. I am reasonably certain that VRSN would want to be
compensated for their loss. Conservative estimates would be in the millions
of dollars. Also, it would take some real work to extricate them from
GTLD.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. This is work that VRSGN would also wish to be
compensated for (man-hours). What are these TLDs worth and who gets the
revenue from the sale?

Note that VRSGN stock has been taking a beating. The sale of NET and ORG
would help boost VRGN stock price. But, for VRGN to see that benefit, they
would have to make 100's of millions from their sale. Remember how much
VRSGN paid for NSI.

-- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 12:52 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:-
>  All the evidence points to this being a relatively last 
> minute brainstorm
> on VRSN's part.
> 
> If so, all the evidence points to this being a relatively last minute
> agreement on ICANN's part.  Not exactly appropriate behaviour for a
> corporation that is supposed to go through a consensus 
> procedure involving
> interested stakeholders before giving away a key contract 
> worth potentially
> billions of dollars.
> Joanna
> 
> 
> --
> 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