Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
Good point. I think we should first get Ross' proposal dealt with. It is
certainly a start. After that, we (Go Daddy) are not opposed to considering
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
From: Jim Archer <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, February 7, 2003 3:37 am
--On Friday, February 07, 2003 3:25 AM -0700 Tim Ruiz
> I believe the RC should indeed take heed hear. Not because
> PersonalNames itself is such a threat, the .NAME name space isn't
> making anyone a stack of cash is it? But the concept is certainly
I completely agree, especially about the non-existent stack of cash
> And PersonalNames isn't setting any real precedent. We already have
> NSI/VGRS and there are other members of this constituency who are
> involved in both the registrar and registry side of things.
True enough. But in most cases, there is not complete ownership and
control over the registrar entity by the registry entity. Yes, some
registrars are involved in registries to some extent. And yes, NSI is
owned by Verisign's parent, although not by the registry itself
(there is also history to mitigate the NSI/VGRS issue). Clearly,
this is incestuous. I may be mistaken, but I do believe this is the
first instance of a registry wholly owning and controlling a
registrar. If this is not the case (that GNR controls the
PersonalNames), or if this is not the first case of a registry owning
and controlling a registrar, please correct me.
> I think Ross has the right idea as to how to approach this for now.
> He recently proposed we institute some new qualifications for
> membership in the RC. I would prefer to continue to pursue that for
> now, and not get involved in actions that will not likely result in
> anything positive. We cannot pursue PersonalNames without involving
> the NSI/VGRS issue, and that issue has already been driving around
> the block a few times.
I disagree. I think the NSI/VGRS issue is similar but different, as I
I am all for restrictions on their membership and/or participation in
the RC as Ross suggested. I think we need to do more. Honestly, I
don't expect the RC as a whole will really act in the manner I
suggested, but it is our opinion that the RC should do this and so I
Thanks for the reply!
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] PersonalNames.com
> From: Jim Archer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Fri, February 7, 2003 2:41 am
> To: Registrars Mail List <email@example.com>
> Some participants on this list have expressed a concern about the
> existence of PersonalNmaes.com. We share that concern and are
> also troubled by the precedent set.
> As the EU has a particularly strong anti-trust organizations,
> both for the EU and each country, we have decided after some
> research that the best course of action, as a start, is to file
> a number of complaints.
> I think the RC itself should consider filing a complaint.
> PersonalNames.com clearly has an unfair competitive advantage, as
> themselves note on their web site. Also, the pricing they offer
> which we can not offer until Feb 15th -- seems a particularly
> legal violation.
> As the establishment and accreditation of this company is an
> immediate and serious threat to the continued existence of the
> entire registrar industry, I feel we should stand together on
> this to make a strong stand. If we don't hang together, we
> shall surely hang separately.
> --On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:38 AM -0500 Rob Hall
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > It seems that the Global Name Registry has decided to start
> > selling domains to end users directly.
> > Check out www.personalnames.com .
James W. Archer