Re: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service

[elliot noss <enoss@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I would frame the core question a little differently. For me it is 
something like "what is the contractual nature of the registry 
agreement?". IOW is it a contract for a fee to preform a service, or is 
it a broad delegation of the rights and benefits associated with a TLD?
This is the question that, IMHO, ICANN has been afraid to answer and I 
think here Verisign was silly enough to force them to. Boy if I was 
interested in the re-bid of .com or .net I would be licking my lips 
right about now.
To be clear, I am not putting this question to you to be answered Mike. 
I appreciate you would be ill advised to do so publically.
Regards

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Ross,
>
> Thanks for the clarification of "loaded".
>
> > From a purely legal standpoint, ICANN has granted a registry (.MUSEUM) the
> contractual right to use wild cards in their registry operations. Therefore,
> there is a presumption that ICANN has condoned this service, either
> explicitly or by mistake.
>
> If, however, as you previously stated in your last email, ICANN staff just
> made an arbitrary decision without consulting the community. Then the next
> question you/community needs to ask is how do you undue this "mistake."
>
> Please keep the constructive comments coming, they are appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:13 AM
> > To: Michael D. Palage
> > Cc: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS
> > lookup service
> >
> >
> > On 9/16/2003 11:00 AM Michael D. Palage noted that:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > Ross,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the answers. I do not know about the questions being
> > >      
> > "loaded" but
> >    
> >
> > > they were meant to be tough questions (for both sides of the
> > >      
> > argument) that
> >    
> >
> > > would provide the quickest means of getting to the core issues.
> > >      
> > I should have been clearer about that remark. I mean "loaded" in the
> > sense that there seems to be a presumption that the service is desirable
> > and places the onus on the community to demonstrate why this is a bad
> > thing. Verisign is the one that needs to demonstrate why this is
> > desirable and how the benefits to the community will exceed currently
> > accepted practices resolvers.
> >
> > I don't think they can. Even if I am wrong and there are benefits to
> > doing things this way, it is simply not right to allow a corporation to
> > throw away 20 years of DNS best practices because they feel like it. I
> > want to be convinced, or I want it to go away.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >                        -rwr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    
>