nanog mailing list archives
RE: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd)
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 00:57:45 -0700
From: Steve Sobol [mailto:sjsobol () NorthShoreTechnologies net] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:12 AM Patrick Greenwell wrote:For those of you not following this, the following decision means effectively NSI has been regranted a registry monopoly over.com (theyspin out .net and .org) and they do not have to split the registry operation from the registrar operation.?! uhhh, so what happens to all the alternative dotcom registrars? I mean, is ICANN asking to be hauled into court or what?
Nothing of the sort. It simply means that the NSI registrar can continue as-is. The prior agreement would have forced NSI to divest of either the registrar or the registry. Now, they get to keep both but have to divest themselves of ORG and NET registries. BTW, their are legitimate COM/NET/ORG registrars. They are legitimate re-sellers. If you are speaking towards the independent inclusive TLD registries, that remains status quo, as well. What this will mean is that someone has to deploy ORG and NET registries. How much you wanna bet that ICANN contracts NSI to do so?
Current thread:
- [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd) Patrick Greenwell (Apr 02)
- Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd) Mike Kuebler (Apr 02)
- Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd) Steve Sobol (Apr 03)
- Re: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd) Patrick Greenwell (Apr 03)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: [ga] Verisign Agreement Adopted (fwd) Roeland Meyer (Apr 03)