<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [registrars] verisign.com
- To: "Monte Cahn" <monte@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [registrars] verisign.com
- From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 11:48:40 +0000
- Cc: "'Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Thomas Keller'" <tom@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'Scott Jung'" <scott@xxxxxxxxxx>, registrars@xxxxxxxx, brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:07:22 -0400." <200409161407.i8GE7OLe024430@web1.domainsystems.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|