Re: [ga] VeriSign May Ditch Domain Deal
Roeland Meyer wrote:
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:email@example.com]So if registrar X ran its own registry, as I discuss below, then at least
that one-stop-shopping mentality would lie with all such registrars, rather
than being monopolized by Verisign -- the Verisign/ICANN agreement
is and will continue to be anti-competitive.
> Another is the recent Verisign/ICANNPretty good, Roeland! Verisign stock (whatever their symbol is)
skyrocketed! Don't we all realize that the investing public, and
particularly the high level investors, can recognize a monopoly
when they see one and hence know where the profits will be?
But, I reallySo here's where the ignorance of this feller right here writing this thing (and
he has more than enough to go around, let me assure you!) comes to the
fore. As I said, I started out in "one registry, one registrar," etc. mode. My
pea brain has accepted and indeed embraced the multiple registrar concept.
But I'm stuck on how there can really be multiple registries. Wouldn't that
be an information logistics problem? Would each registrar run its own
registry and that's it, with no interconnection and no central data base (as
I'm told the WHOISs are now done)? If there were a relationship such that
Registrar A only handles one TLD, and Registrar B handles another one,
the fact that the same character string xxx were put to the left of the dot
by both would present no problem, e.g., one of them would be xxx.net and
the other xxx.org -- no collision. But that's not the case. What if two
registrars sign up xxx.com and enter them into their own registry and the
two registrars never talk to each other or to some central point about
what they have done?
I understand the term "root level" to mean one central registry where
The new TLDsYeah! And then tell me! :-)
I hate to appear to beI'll ditto that. ICANN goes off half cocked all the time, even though it has at hand
a bunch of SOs that in fact have the expertise to keep ICANN on track. It does
not use that expertise for at least one simple reason: the background of its high
echelon is all multi-B corporate, "we on the Board do what we think best and to
hell with the stockholders," without fully grasping (and may never grasp) the concept
that ICANN is not for-profit (the only kind the Board knows) but public interest,
and it is required to act in that public interest. That means first listening to the public,
and I refer there to policy type things. (The difference is, a business corporate director
can often say, "no ignorant twit out there is going to tell me how to run this company,"
and having been at stockholder's meetings and heard what some such ignorant twits
can come up with, I can report that such an attitude is not without justification; but on
the other hand, such an attitude within a public interest corporation is precluded by
definition.) But it is equally important in a case like this where the "lab bench expertise"
actually required to do the job does not lie within the upper executive levels (whatever
might have been there in the past as to certain people seems to have dwindled away,
the way things are going -- no more proof of that proposition is needed than what
we are looking at right now), but rather lays amidst all us GA peons.
On that subject, you can surely take it that I do not count myself
as one who has
Good show, Roeland!