Re: [ga] Re: Last minute changes to Verisign agreements
Tuesday, April 03, 2001, 5:00:49 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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.
Lawyers representing parties who had a significant stake in the
outcome, including the ones working on behalf of ICANN. As noted,
ICANN NEEDED this agreement to go through, one way or the other, if no
other reason than because under it Verisign agrees to pay a very
significant amount more than they do now to ICANN.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html