Re: [registrars] Position Statement

[Larry Erlich <erlich@domainregistry.com>]

Beckwith, Bruce wrote:

> Lastly, there are some facts and questions that you should consider before
> deciding for yourselves if the proposed agreements are in fact best for the
> internet community:  Did registrars choose to enter the business solely
> based on the possibility  that NSI divest of either registrar or registry?
> Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestiture! 

Bruce,

With respect to this statement, the letter from Stratton
Sclavos to Vint Cerf, opening paragraph said the
following:

http://www.icann.org/nsi/sclavos-letter-28feb01.htm

-- Dear Vint:
-- 
-- As you know, under a 1999 agreement between ICANN and 
-- Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI has since merged with VeriSign, Inc.), 
-- in order for the term of the registries for -- .com, .net and .org 
-- to continue at least through 2007, we are obliged to divest the assets and
-- operations of either the NSI Registrar or the Registry (now known as
-- VeriSign Global Registry Services). Earlier this year, 
-- VeriSign announced its intention to divest itself of the assets
-- and operations of the NSI Registrar and to continue to operate 
-- the Registries for .com, .net, and .org through at least 2007.

So what exactly do you mean when you say: 

"Remember, the 1999 agreement does not require divestititure!" 

So, why then did Verisign proceed as
if it was going to divest, and why did Stratton Sclavos
state so in his letter to Vint Cerf? 
Sclavos letter seems pretty clear to me.

Larry Erlich

http://www.DomainRegistry.com
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Erlich - DomainRegistry.com, Inc.
215-244-6700 - FAX:215-244-6605 - Reply: erlich@DomainRegistry.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------