<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
Don't bother Bill. It's a sidetrack.
The really interesting coincidence (IMHO) is the issuance of the the
DNSO IPC letter on NeuLevel's .biz, and the sudden VeriSign apprehension
before the ICANN deal.
To be frank, I never believed the .biz registry was *ever* going to come
into ICANNroot existence. This latest turn of events and talk of
commercial "streets" in the IPC letter, brings us back to the overall
value of the current .com-mercial and pseudo-commercial .net domains as
Intellectual Property! Which is why now, more than ever, a definition
for the property status of domain names must be implemented.
Sincerely,
Sotiris Sotiropoulos
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> Bill,Please give me an example that proves that the current
> separation between Registry and Registrar does not work.Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 12:43 PM
> To: Bruce James
> Cc: GA
> Subject: Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
>
> Well, let's hope so. To begin with, paper work "separation"
> between registry and registrar
> functions has always been a gross fiction -- it never works
> and should never have been
> contemplated. What do you think happens when the registry
> type says to the registrar type,
> "Let's do lunch?" I never deal directly with NSI (Verisign)
> in registering a domain name,
> but only when the necessary paper work trickles out of my
> registration application to some
> other registrar.
>
> Even so, I guess that makes me a "customer" of Verisign and
> gives them a crack in the law
> that allows them to send me their SPAM. That's one reason
> why there's an incompatibility
> between registry and registrar functions -- registries
> should twiddle bits, and that's all --
> a registry should be hawking nothing. (For our nonUSA people
> to whom the slang term
> "hawking" is not familiar, it just means aggressive
> marketing and that sort of thing.)
>
> (Once our current more important issues get resolved, SPAM,
> privacy, security, etc., will
> be my next projects.)
>
> (The concession in par. 2 below solves nothing as to the
> problem in par. 1.)
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Bruce James wrote:
>
> > ""The major sticking point arose from a letter that the
> > Justice Department sent to the Department of Commerce
> > warning that the deal would harm competition in the
> > nascent business of registering Internet names, people
> > familiar with the negotiations said. The letter opposed
> > the so-called vertical integration of VeriSign's managing
> > of the ".com" database and registering new names in the
> > database, sources said.""
> >
> > ""Commerce officials were said to be asking for more
> > concessions from VeriSign, such as giving up control of
> > the ".net" domain sooner than 2005.""
> >
> >
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bruce James
> > To: GA
> > Sent: May 16, 2001 07:46
> > Subject: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
> > VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
> > By Aaron Pressman
> > May 15 2001 04:57 PM PDT
> >
> > The Commerce Department's review of the
> > agreement that extends the computer security
> > firm's control of the '.com' domain has the
> > company thinking twice, sources say.
> >
> > MORE at:
> >
> >
> > ttp://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > /Bruce
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
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
>>>
|