ICANN threatened legal action before, effectively. Are they doing anything this time?
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 08:56:47 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >He's right, and we should actually take our business elsewhere. >Unfortunately, >we can't. They have a monopoly. No matter what registrar we use to >register >our domains, that registrar is paying the part of Verislime that is >inflicting >this on us to run the REGISTRY for .com and .net. > >The only way to actually vote with our feet is to get ICANN to start working >on finding an alternative registry and cancel their contract with Verislime. >This will be difficult, awkward, and, may introduce short-term instabilities >in the network. > >I suspect Verisign will not participate in an orderly hand-over of the >necessary data without a court order, in spite of the provisions in their >contract requiring them to do just that. > >Owen > > >--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:31 AM -0400 "McBurnett, Jim" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> All, >> I hate to agree but he is right. >> With companies like godaddy out there. >> Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our >> headaches? >> >> To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND >> version truly break sitefinder? >> >> >> Later, >> Jim >> >> ->-----Original Message----- >> ->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> ->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM >> ->To: nanog list >> ->Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service >> -> >> -> >> -> >> ->Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain >> ->registrations those of us >> ->on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one >> ->thing, taking >> ->all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at >> ->getting a point >> ->across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to >> ->be even more >> ->agressive at taking advantage of their positioning). >> -> >> ->Miles >> -> >> -> >> > -- Jeff Shultz Network Support Willamette Valley Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
