All,
I am looking into this. Evidently, this was an arrangement agreed to
by Verisign as part of the sale of Network Solutions. That of course
does not explain how it gets around the equal access and treatment
issue. I have an inquiry into ICANN and will be following up on it
early next week.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:
[registrars] verisign.com
From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine" <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date: Thu, September 16, 2004
6:48 am
To: "Monte Cahn" <monte@moniker.com>
Cc: "'Eric
Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'"
<brunner@nic-naa.net>,
"'Thomas Keller'"
<tom@schlund.de>, "'Scott Jung'"
<scott@nordnet.fr>,
registrars@dnso.org,
brunner@nic-naa.net
> Maybe we shouldn't pay the registry
until 11/1?
Some money is being made off of this, it seems to me
that _every_ registrar
that has passed OT&E (or was scheduled to
during this period) has either a
market share claim to a percentage,
or an equal share claim, of that money,
in addition to an injunctive
claim, since there is no reason to assume that
VGRS+NSI is making
the gross, or net, that any other OT&E registrar is, or
could be
making during this period. Then there are the hosting and
other
packages to consider, etc.
As retailers we could try to
influence the wholesaler, either by payment
means, or by sales means,
or even (shudder) product "recall", but just the
monetary judgement
-- in effect turning the VGRS+NSI primary market share
into the
functional equivalent, for the duration, of any of the
secondary
market specialists that provide "registrar revenue share
for the month of",
should be enough to disincent contract breach and
establish the precedent
that when VGRS steals from registrars, its
pocket is opened by registrars.
Tim is the senior member of the
ExCom, I hope he'll call Dan and let him
know a clock is ticking. We
need to know what's cooking, then we can draft
a statement based upon
a better understanding and put it into the
proces
hopper(s).
I'd hoped to get some work done
today...
Eric