| <<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
 Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions
To: svl@nrw.net, svl@nrw.net, apisan@servidor.unam.mx, Amadeu@nominalia.com,       karl@CaveBear.com, jcohen@shapirocohen.com, phil.davidson@bt.com,       f.fitzsimmons@att.net, ken.fockler@sympatico.ca,       mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com, hans@icann.org,       shkyong@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr, andy@ccc.de, junsec@wide.ad.jp,       quaynor@ghana.com, roberts@icann.org, helmut.schink@icn.siemens.de,       linda@icann.org, vint cerf <vcerf@MCI.NET>Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Board descisionsFrom: "Siegfried Langenbach" <svl@nrw.net>Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:38:34 +0100CC: ga@dnso.org, ecdiscuss@ec-pop.org, core@corenic.orgIn-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.2.20010309122001.07685828@shoe.reston.mci.net>Organization: CSL GmbHReferences: <01K0YJC5E4YWA0UDLO@shoe.reston.mci.net>Reply-to: svl@nrw.netSender: owner-ga-full@dnso.org 
 
Dear Sir,
 I am not completely convinced of your argument even recognizing 
the value, because I learned that things in life tend to be more 
complicated, lets say have more than one simple dimension.
 But if I agree on your interpretation I must ask me and you why 
ICANN staff introduced exactly that argument ( reduction of 
marketshare of VeriSign ) to justify the change of the contract ?
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-
topic.htm
snip-------------
B. CHANGES IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE ORIGINAL 
AGREEMENT
...
Perhaps most relevantly, VeriSign's once-dominant market position 
has been severely eroded. VeriSign's share of total registrations has 
fallen to about 50%,
    its share of new registrations to under 40%, and its share of net 
new registrations (taking into account non-renewals and transfers) 
to an even lower level. This
    trend appears to be continuing in 2001.
...
snap-----------
 It seems not logical for me to allow the argument only from one 
point of view.
siegfried
On 9 Mar 01, at 12:21, vint cerf wrote:
> the success here had nothing to do with divestiture but rather to do with
> opening of competition; competition would continue and would even be
> enhanced in the new proposal as .org would be spun off, .net would be
> spun off, and .com would remain. Since the erosion of market share
> was not a consequence of spinning off the registrar but of allowing
> other registrars to register in .com, .net and .org, there does not
> seem to be much value in spinning off the registrar.
> 
> vint
> 
> At 09:34 PM 3/8/2001 +0100, Siegfried Langenbach wrote:
> >about the stats ? not really ( I was a statistician half my life and 
> >know that can only trust on my on stats :-))
> >so the question is : why cancel the rules which had the success 
> >they were made for ? because of the success ?
> 
> 
> --
> 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-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
 <<<
Chronological Index
>>>    <<<
Thread Index
>>>
 
 |