RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some SnapNam es stats

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

Jefsey,

It is not possible to provide details of either SnapNames or VGRS technology
because they are proprietary.

Second, it would not be appropriate according to VeriSign policy or commonly
accepted legal practices to publicly disclose legal analysis performed by
our staff.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 4:00 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> SnapNam es stats
> 
> 
> Dear Chuck,
> everyone wander what the SnapName technology may be so 
> Verisign may take 
> advantage from it. Apart from being possibly a help to manage 
> the VRSN 
> database discrepancies, most of us feel they could imagine 
> very quickly how 
> to implement a WLS service. Could you please document this 
> technology shortly?
> 
> I also believe there is an important impact on TM ownership 
> and DN nature 
> to include in the same registrant contract the WLS and UDRP, 
> all the more 
> by a Registry and a Panelist. I am sure that Versign has 
> first ordered a 
> legal analysis to its lawyers. It would be of great help to 
> everyone to 
> study that document or at least a significant abstract of it.
> 
> Thank you for responding on these two points.
> Jefsey
> 
> On 19:17 07/01/02, Gomes, Chuck said:
> >Wrong.  The fact that we entered into a license agreement 
> simply means
> >that we have rights to use the technology if the WLS is implemented.
> >That allowed us to more accurately predict our costs in preparing a
> >proposal but in no way does that mean it is a fait accompli.
> >
> >Chuck
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 12:45 PM
> > > To: ga
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Further Thoughts on Deleted Names, with some
> > > SnapNames stats
> > >
> > >
> > > "Gomes, Chuck" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > These kind of decisions would have to be made by our
> > > business people.
> > > > And as you probably already know, in order to be able to
> > > most accurately
> > > > provide a proposal with cost information, we already 
> entered into an
> > > > agreement with SnapNames.
> > >
> > > In other words, this registry WLS is not really a
> > > "proposal" but a fait accompli?
> > >
> > > This appears to be an illegal _lottery_ schema.  What do
> > > you have to say about that.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > --
> > > 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
> 
--
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