<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] ICANN censoring VeriSign settlement comments??!!??
- To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN censoring VeriSign settlement comments??!!??
- From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:30:48 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=eX+K6z6lCsQmrH7LWi8gfivtwj3FSnXUcL4AG3C4Z+7ROaBkeJi7xS7vg1vXcxwqrSyBMujWhp9m8Aazknltv8Gsjs48WYkQ7hBc1KbHDcuI97NSri0Sto+wssh380W7Ddu8sxP9mbhmTt6KTsH2rWQPtQ7iSxR+C3vFWgtu3ls= ;
- In-reply-to: <20051122153932.32673.qmail@web50014.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's back online.
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21nov05.htm is online
now, too. I wonder who wrote the answers to the new Questions and
Answers --- ICANN or VeriSign? Some hard to believe answers in that
section, like
"A1.2 In order to provide for a transition to allowing market forces to
determine prices, ICANN and VeriSign agreed to relax the current price
cap" -- is that like the transition to an elected Board? Market forces
would be moving prices lower. Allowing a monopolist to set its own
price is not "market forces".
"A4.2 Extending VeriSign's .COM registry contract to 2012, as proposed
in this agreement, maintains Internet security and stability. " -- I
think they meant "VeriSign net income security and stability" not
"Internet". Although, to VeriSign, they probably think they ARE the
Internet.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|