Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (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. -- Paul Vixie
RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
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 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 On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, David Schwartz wrote: 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
RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: 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. 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 -- Mark Jeftovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Co-founder, easyDNS Technologies Inc. ph. +1-(416)-535-8672 ext 225 fx. +1-(416)-535-0237
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
Verisign is really two entities wrt .com/net - it is the registry and the registrar. Verisign Registrar, aka Network Solutions, was sold off to Pivotal Private Equity last Fall. Other lines of analysis to attempt: o what are registry services and what are not. o if a registry services, is the plan of record consistent with equal access to all operational registrars? to all accredited registrars? o is the feature a surprise, and is it a noxious surprise? hint: consulting the non-feature user base is allowed. o is the feature protocol-independent or is it protocol-specific, and if specific, is that a good thing? The point of this interposition on a query is enablement of a provisioning sale and subsequent downstream sales of name service, site hosting, bandwidth, digital certificats, turn-key solutions, etc. o would it matter if interposition on the query were performed at the browser? at the access ISP? at any nameserver? hint: see my prior notes on China, a Unicode bug in the IE navbar, and transpac flow for clue. I think I'll go have coffee. Basically everyone capable of steering traffic who can detect interposition or the opportunity to interpose and doesn't steer traffic to their own, not VGRS's retail sales, should either do a deal with VGRS's wholesale, or waive bye bye to all the things you could do (appologies to Dr. Seuss). This just in on another list, I haven't read them all (but I did check, and the WaPo's David McGuire did use hieroglyphics when writing about writing Chinese. Must be one of those covert signaling channels between Washington and Beijing.) * From the Associated Press (by Anick Jesdanun, staff): http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/national/8050595.htm http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/8050595.htm http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-Internet-Oversight.html Includes quotes or attributions from: Jonathan Weinberg, law professor, Wayne State University Kieran Baker, ICANN spokesman (no comment) Michael Froomkin, law professor, University of Miami Tom Galvin, vice president of government relations, VeriSign * From ZDNet (by Declan McCullagh, CNet): http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5165982.html Includes quotes or attributions from: Galvin Froomkin John Jeffrey, ICANN general counsel (not reached) * From Reuters (newer, by Andy Sullivan, staff) http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=4449883 Includes quotes or attributions from: Galvin Derek Newman, Seattle lawyer * From the Washington Post (by David McGuire, staff): http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9415-2004Feb26 Includes quotes or attributions from: Galvin Mark Lewyn, chairman, Paxfire Inc. Baker (no comment) Stratton Sclavos, VeriSign chief executive * From Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/26/235256.shtml Anyone else going to Rome? Eric
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/special_report/Stratton_Sclavos.html
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin.
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: Since no one else has mentioned this: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html Looks like I need to stock up on popcorn. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - [EMAIL PROTECTED] WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Roman Volf wrote: When are they up for renewal exactly? November 10, 2007, according to http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm -S
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
in response to... http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil J. McRae) writes: can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin. it's not nearly that simple. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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. -- Paul Vixie
RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
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
RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
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 On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, David Schwartz wrote: 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 -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's warm here.--
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
Scott Call wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Roman Volf wrote: When are they up for renewal exactly? November 10, 2007, according to http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm -S I think as far as Verisign is concerned, they might not be an ongoing concern in 2007, so why worry? They need to do something to get their revenues up or risk the wrath of wallstreet: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040129/tech_verisign_earns_4.html At $6/year per domain registered, VGRS makes the lion share of money in the domain registry business for .com and .net. Yet, they are losing $20MM per last quarter (or more, they lost over 200MM in 2003) And only have about $300MM in cash . And their revenues are falling. Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
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
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (william(at)elan.net) writes: ... And based on that Verisign rule over these tlds ends in November 2007 no. See page 19 of: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID475281_code70168.pdf?abstractid=475281 i think that verisign and icann are stuck with each other, in perpetuity. -- Paul Vixie
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, John Kinsella wrote: When are they up for renewal exactly? November 10, 2007, according Any way to speed that up? ;) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm 16. Termination ... B. In the event of termination by DOC of its Cooperative Agreement with Registry Operator pursuant to Section 1.B.8 of Amendment ___ to that Agreement, ICANN shall, after receiving express notification of that fact from DOC and a request from DOC to terminate Registry Operator as the operator of the Registry TLD, terminate Registry Operator's rights under this Agreement, and shall cooperate with DOC to facilitate the transfer of the operation of the Registry Database to a successor registry C. This Agreement may also be terminated in the by ICANN on written notice given at least forty days after the final and nonappealable occurrence of either of the following events: (i) Registry Operator: (a) is convicted by a court of competent jurisdiction of a felony or other serious offense related to financial activities, or is the subject of a determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that ICANN reasonably deems as the substantive equivalent of those offenses ; or (b) is disciplined by the government of its domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others ii) Any officer or director of Registry Operator is convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or is judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or is the subject of a judicial determination that ICANN deems as the substantive equivalent of any of these So all we need to do is either lobby us government (get to your senator or congressman; and before Verisign starts lobbying him directly) or get federal courts to convict the people at Verisign responsible for all this mess. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
Any way to speed that up? ;) John On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:57:12PM -0800, Scott Call wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Roman Volf wrote: When are they up for renewal exactly? November 10, 2007, according to http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-25may01.htm
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
For ICANN/Registry agreements see here: http://www.icann.org/registries/agreements.htm Specific agreements all technical specs Verisign agreed to follow: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/com-index.htm http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/net-index.htm And based on that Verisign rule over these tlds ends in November 2007 On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Roman Volf wrote: When are they up for renewal exactly? william(at)elan.net wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: Since no one else has mentioned this: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html 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.
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
When are they up for renewal exactly? william(at)elan.net wrote: On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: Since no one else has mentioned this: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html 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.
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Deepak Jain wrote: Since no one else has mentioned this: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html 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. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
Neil J. McRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/26/04 3:03:52 PM http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin. They must have taken a page from the recently-released book How to Shoot Your Company in the Foot, by SCO. * John -- The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. --
