DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

At 09:01 AM 4/3/2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>As has been repeatedly explained, it is highly questionable whether the 
>sale by VeriSign of the registrar business to a subsidiary or other 
>controlled party (which was the only way for VeriSign to keep the control 
>on both parts) would have stood in court a judgement on antitrust.

Roberto, I do not know whether you are an expert on the relevant law.  I 
know that I am not.

I also know that a number of lawyers who ARE knowledge on the topic seemed 
willing to characterize the relevant part of the ICANN/Verisign contract as 
a loophole.

I also know that it is very dangerous to rely on court processes to do the 
right thing.

For a number of offenses over recent years, I would have expected Verisign 
to be ground into legal dust.  But as we can see it has not happened.

>As of the letter of the current (previous, at the time of my reply to your 
>message) contract, VeriSign would have lost the renewal of its contract if 
>the separation was not going to become effective.

And they stated they were ready to do the separation.  Hence they keep 
.com.  And the loophole lets them back into the registrar business.

No, it's not a good thing, but it IS reality.

>>So you are rejecting a markedly better contract because of a so-called
>>policy that has no relevance to the comparison between alternatives.
>IMHO, the question is: better for whom.

Verisign would be fools if they did not see it as better for themselves, of 
course, but they are not our (my or your) concern.

So the question is whether it is better for ICANN's performance of its job 
and the answer is yes.  At a minimum, registry fees will be more equitable 
and administration of registry contracts will be more uniform.

>I still think that to be able to run (and now without time constraints 
>and/or other future limitations) the Registry and the Registrar for the 
>major generic TLD *is* giving to VeriSign unfair competitive edge.

I entirely agree.

But it does not matter.

They already had access to that unfairness.

The new contract changed a few details surrounding the unfairness but does 
not create the problem.


Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464

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 >>>