<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
All registrars have the same access to the
SRS. There is no difference. The NSI Registrar accesses the SRS via the
Internet just like all the others.
Chuck
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
Bill,I don't have
a clue what you are talking about.
Chuck:
And I, you. What "results quarterly?" I don't care about stockholders
reports
(at least at the momen). We're talking about the NSI/Verisign
monopoly (or
at least a temporary one) on information. How do all other
registrars have the
same access as you do?
Bill Lovell
VeriSign reports it's results quarterly and those reports are on the
VeriSign web site. Chuck
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
What does so called SPAM
have to do with separation of Registry and
Registrar?
Chuck: There is
nothing "so-called" about SPAM. I believe just about every ISP
known
now has to spend mucho bucks setting up
filters against it. If there's anything more
annoying than
that it would probably be yellow stickies and blue
fonts.
What does marketing have to do with separation of Registry and
Registrar?
Like I
said.
No conclusive evidence has ever been produced to substantiate
the rumor you mention, undoubtedly because it is just a rumor.
Again, this has nothing to do with Registry/Registrar separation because
the NSI Registrar has the same exact access to the SRS as all other
registrars.
Show us the document which says that - or at least that NSI doesn't
have a head start in
which to add to its domain name horde. (How
many domain names does NSI/Verisign
now have registered? Want to
tell us? I think the portal to that information got closed.)
(So how
come this isn't blue?)
I'm still waiting for facts instead of rumors and
suspicions. I am perfectly comfortable with you having a your own
negative opinions about the current situation but I am not all
comfortable with you making charges that are
false.
Um, Verisign has
the "facts" cuddled to its breast. When someone has the gumption
to
sue and discovery starts, well, then, maybe we'll all know. The
evidence by which NSI
(rightly) won the Lockheed - Martin
"skunkworks" case in the 9th circuit never got into
that.
And thank you for
including my whole thing. I can't yet get my browser to show it!
:-)
Bill
Lovell
Chuck
The bloody SPAM is enough by itself.
And as an attorney, I know
how "Chinese walls" work -- they
don't. How it was that "marketing"
ever got into the purely
technical issue of running a root and recording
domain name
registrations is beyond me, except for the fact that NSI
has NEVER
done anything without first thought to its bottom line.
The
"examples" pertinent to this issue itself are of course within
the walls
of Verisign, so I would invite you to provide any
examples which show
that anything I have suggested is not
true. Hawking and registering domain
names is a marketing
function, with a bit of techno-bit twiddling attached;
running a
registry of who has registered what so that the DNS function
can
be authoritatively carried out is pure techno-bookkeeping, and should
never be found in the same basket as marketing. They are
philosophically
different functions that have an inherent conflict
of interest, and any mix of
them is quite anti-competitive in that
every registration then ultimately ends
up with the registry,
thereby giving that registry an unfair advantage in its
own
hawking efforts if it is permitted then to tout its own registration
services
as to every conceivable variation of a "hot" name, which
Verisign (and, e.g.,
register.com, but you see register.com does
not have the whole pile as does
Verisign) does interminably.
I am not an antitrust lawyer, but I've studied
it, and I was not
born yesterday.
Rumor has it that Verisign has also tracked WHOIS queries, and when
one
looks like a "hot" one (read "marketable") it has immediately
snatched it up
for itself, and although this also seems to be the
practice in a lot of other places,
a look at the domain names that
Verisign/NSI has registered to itself would
make it among the
biggest, if not the biggest, cybersquatter on the net (were it
not
for the loophole in the law that exempts registrars from that law -- a
loophole about which I would like to know -- and intend to find
out -- just
how much Verisign/NSI had a hand in getting into that
abominable law.
Chuck, no one out here with half a brain can fail to figure out
what
Verisign/NSI -- of whom I am forced against my will to be a
customer
if I'm to have a domain name -- does. Verisign/NSI past
practices have,
I suspect, conditioned a good bit of the public to
accept at once the idea
that Verisign/NSI would in fact be
carrying out exactly what I've said.
And thank you for the email;
it has moved me to respond, and suggested
that, since this issue
is before the Congress right now, I should immediately
copy this
whole thing off to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), so excuse me
while I
take care of that chore. Maybe that will help put an end to this
farce.
Bill Lovell
"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
Bill,Please give me an example that proves that
the current separation between Registry and Registrar does not
work.Chuck
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
-----
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:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24500,00.html
/Bruce
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|