Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News
can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin.
in response to...
Yahoo Finance - Stock Market Live, Quotes, Business & Finance News
X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1
neil@DOMINO.ORG (Neil J. McRae) writes:
can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin.
it's not nearly that simple.
john.neiberger@efirstbank.com ("John Neiberger") added:
They must have taken a page from the recently-released book "How to Shoot Your
Company in the Foot," by SCO.
there's a certain inevitability to these things. sco believed that it had no choice
except closing its doors or suing. verisign may feel likewise. the palatable choices
were all discarded much earlier, and not nec'ily in ways whose outcomes were knowable.
william@elan.net (William Leibzon) writes:
And I'm sure ICANN will remember it for long time - right up to the point
when Verisign's contracts for .com/.net management are up for renewal.
IANAL, but upon rereading the contract a few months ago they looked self-perpetuating
and there appears to be no circumstance no matter how unreasonable under which icann
could select a different operator for the .com or .net registries. but don't take my
word for it -- pay a lawyer to read <http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm>
and then let us all know what she tells you.
the paper at <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=475281> entitled
"Site Finder and Internet Governance" by Jonathan Weinberg is also quite instructive.
By the way, do we even know what we're talking about? Specifically, has
VeriSign produced a set of specifications for exactly what SiteFinder is and
does?
For example, is it guaranteed to return the same A record for all
unregistered domains? Is it guaranteed that that A record will not change?
Until VeriSign produces a technical specification for what it is they
intend to do, they cannot expect other people to opine about what effects
their changes will have. VeriSign has not yet even started the notification
and analysis period.
Isn't VeriSign's lawsuit premature? I mean, ICANN has not yet said no to
any specific technical proposal from VeriSign, at least as far as I know. Is
VeriSign arguing that they should be able to do whatever they want with the
root DNS, with no advance notice to anyone?
DS
The lawsuit is not premature to the extent that
1. VRSN were told (however justly) to cease and desist Site Finder 1.0 or
else face consequences.
2. VRSN were told they couldn't implement the "Consolidate" service
without making other concessions [according to the complaint the service
allowed registrants to buy fractions of a year registrations to top up
existing ones so that a whole portfolio would come due on the same day --
a useful feature].
3. ICANN hasn't implemented the parts of the contracts that call
for review panels in cases of disputes.
4. VRSN are looking for leverage to force a favorable outcome in Rome on
WLS or on the forthcoming Sitefinder 2.0 as part of settlement
negotiations if any.
Not, I hasten to add, that I support Sitefinder or WLS (although I think I
like "consolidate"). But what I like isn't the issue. Even if having
ICANN win some of these is a short-run gain for usability of the Internet,
making ICANN's approval required for every ancillary service or change in
business model of every registry is a serious long-term drag on the
evolution of the Internet. Although, like all regulatory compliance work,
it would generate serious lawyers' fees....
By the way, do we even know what we're talking about?
that is not needed to flame folk such as verisign. lynch mobs
look pretty good until you are the one on guantanamo.
randy
Not, I hasten to add, that I support Sitefinder or WLS (although I think I
like "consolidate"). But what I like isn't the issue. Even if having
Just to recap here, this thread plus the articles I'm reading miss one of the
major points (a commercial one essentialy)..
Verisign is really two entities wrt .com/net - it is the registry and the
registrar. As a registrar it occupies the same position as the many other
registrars.. tucows, melbourne, joker etc .. as a registry it occupies a
privileged position in that it is the only entity responsible for managing and
maintaining the gtld servers and zonefiles.
So, with that in mind, regardless of how beneficial you may think sitefinder is
it exists to the exclusion and detriment of the other registrars, I just dont
see how this is justifiable and supports the argument that Verisign is indeed
abusing its position.
Steve
Verisign sold off NetSol to Pivotal Private Equity last year for 100
million, which takes them out of the registrar space and leaves them
as the registry.
-mark
markjr@easydns.com (Mark Jeftovic) writes:
Verisign sold off NetSol to Pivotal Private Equity last year for 100
million, which takes them out of the registrar space and leaves them
as the registry.
it'll be several quarters, and one audited annual report, before we'll
know how much control (in terms of supervoting, buyback rights, and so
on) verisign still has over netsol. the fact that they aren't the owners
of record of that segment of their business is not particularly relevant.
now that there's a lawsuit filed, icann could subpoena the details and
discover verisign's continuing rights in the matter of netsol's futures.