Re: [ga] [ga-icann] Perspective on funding ICANN -- PROPOSAL for an AUDIT

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Hey, Chuck.  All I know is what I read in the papers.  People
can read what I read and draw their own conclusions.  What
it does show is that Verisign is a B sized outfit -- if that were
not known already -- and that's my only point.

Methinks thou ist too defensive.

Bill Lovell
 

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

 Bill,What $21B went to NSI?  The value at closing was not $21B; moreover it was a pure stock transaction so no cash was exchanged.Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: William S. Lovell [mailto:wsl@cerebalaw.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 5:30 PM
To: ga@DNSO.org
Subject: [ga] [ga-icann] Perspective on funding ICANN -- PROPOSAL for an AUDIT
 

ICANN seems to be collecting few contributors. Discussion of one of these was floated by Chuck Gomes
in the message:

Subject:
        [ga] Advantages to Option B
   Date:
        Tue, 20 Mar 2001 07:40:53 -0500
   From:
        "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com>
     To:
        "'ga@dnso.org'" <ga@dnso.org>

The other involves the Markle Foundation, but unfortunately my email searcher can't
find anything on it except an old note posted by Joop re travel, but you all should be familiar
with that.  For perspective, consider Verisign's $21 Billion that went to NSI (i.e., to its
stockholders):

http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/03/07/deals/verisign/
[Gomes, Chuck] 

(Text deleted) 

--
         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm