Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
Any thoughts on GNR's complaint that Neustar may have an unfavorable
advantage over GNR because of Gartner's prior analysis? What I mean is given
GNR's technical & economic association with Verisign, wouldn't GNR benefit
from a similar evaluative bias given that Verisign's operation could be
viewed as the standard by which all other comers are being judged? One would
assume that the technical evaluators would have a high degree of
pre-existing familiarity with Verisign and therefore GNR.
"In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in
the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best
Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on
www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of
NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."
Svensson: "to what extent is .name operated by VeriSign?
>(C18.6) - "Global Name Registry has transferred a part of the .name
>Registry function to VeriSign under an agreement to operate part of the
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- Soren Kierkegaard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:56 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
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