Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
You know what is really funny is how the monopoly was formulated. It allows
only certain registrars to sell certain domain TLD's. This is the monopoly
per se, because the customer has no choice or need to have a choice in the
registry that services the names they applied for and purchased publication
OK - That makes sense to some account and it is probably survivable. Now
take it the next step. Is the argument that this Monopoly hurts the customer
or the Registrars? Personally I think the Registrars have a good anti-trust
and conspiracy wrap against ICANN - which is why I keep asking ICANN members
about the Directors Insurance or who is the provider. And like Karl I have
been told that the will not be disclosing that to me. Mostly by just
refusing to answer, so its a comment in action rather than words mostly...
personally its not just Verisign that needs to be investigated by the US
Justice Department. Its ICANN too, and that may happen sooner than people
In California, with the number of Dot Bombs and several interesting cases
now in California Court, where the funding and board members are being held
liable for the operations of the company, I would not want to be ICANN
director's since it is becoming much easier in the State of California to
pierce the veil of the corporation, and not just a failed one, but one that
is obviously being operated against its own bylaws and charter, and then all
claims are off since the matter becomes one of the directors being
financially liable for the damages out of their own pockets.
Further with the issues in corporate theft and malfeasance at the highest
levels I would think that it would be critical to ICANN to publicly open its
books and show the world that as the keeper of the ARPA root, that is not
screwing anyone, or having its funds used inappropriately in insider
Personally, one of the most powerful things that the GA can do in forcing
reform in ICANN is to take a mass petition to the California Secretary of
State demanding a formal audit of ICANN because of its global importance and
its refusal to play by normal NPO rules.
----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Gallegos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Thick vs.thin (was: [ga] Casting stones)
> On 8 Aug 2002, at 20:32, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> > At 18:21 08/08/02, L. Gallegos wrote:
> > >Adding "registrars" to the mix forced price reductions, yes.
> > no. The registry kept $6, but with more customers paid by the inverstors
> > the registrars which tried to "buy market shares" at discounted rates.
> > thay had no more money VRSN purchased them back. And all the unecessary
> > purchased because cheaper are not renewed. jfc
> Jefsey, I was referring to price reductions to the registrant overall.
> monopoly still exists and the registry still gets the $6, but the
> can now register for under $10 as opposed to the $35 demanded by
> Verisign when there were no alternatives available.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.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 email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html