ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [registrars] verisign.com

  • To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] verisign.com
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:36:20 -0700
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<div>All,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>I am looking into this. Evidently, this was an arrangement agreed to
by Verisign as part of the sale of Network Solutions. That of course
does not explain how it gets around the equal access and treatment
issue. I have an inquiry into ICANN and will be following up on it
early next week.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tim<BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT:
blue 2px solid"><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re:
[registrars] verisign.com<BR>From: "Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland
Maine" &lt;brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, September 16, 2004
6:48 am<BR>To: "Monte Cahn" &lt;monte@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: "'Eric
Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine'"
&lt;brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>"'Thomas Keller'"
&lt;tom@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "'Scott Jung'"
&lt;scott@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>registrars@xxxxxxxx,
brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx<BR><BR>&gt; Maybe we shouldn't pay the registry
until 11/1?<BR><BR>Some money is being made off of this, it seems to me
that _every_ registrar<BR>that has passed OT&amp;E (or was scheduled to
during this period) has either a<BR>market share claim to a percentage,
or an equal share claim, of that money,<BR>in addition to an injunctive
claim, since there is no reason to assume that<BR>VGRS+NSI is making
the gross, or net, that any other OT&amp;E registrar is, or<BR>could be
making during this period. &nbsp;Then there are the hosting and
other<BR>packages to consider, etc.<BR><BR>As retailers we could try to
influence the wholesaler, either by payment<BR>means, or by sales means,
or even (shudder) product "recall", but just the<BR>monetary judgement
-- in effect turning the VGRS+NSI primary market share<BR>into the
functional equivalent, for the duration, of any of the
secondary<BR>market specialists that provide "registrar revenue share
for the month of",<BR>should be enough to disincent contract breach and
establish the precedent<BR>that when VGRS steals from registrars, its
pocket is opened by registrars.<BR><BR>Tim is the senior member of the
ExCom, I hope he'll call Dan and let him<BR>know a clock is ticking. We
need to know what's cooking, then we can draft<BR>a statement based upon
a better understanding and put it into the
proces<BR>hopper(s).<BR><BR>I'd hoped to get some work done
today...<BR><BR>Eric </BLOCKQUOTE>




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>