ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predatory domain expiration notices | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 18 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predator
    by fnord ({groy2k} {at} {yahoo.com}) on Saturday March 23 2002, @05:17AM (#5519)
    User #2810 Info
    In none of the referenced material does Go Daddy make the claim that they are the only target. That was my musing (and I've never had any connection to Go Daddy) based on the fact that I hadn't seen reports from other registrars or their registrants regarding this, and I receive registrant email from four registrars and haven't been notified of it, nor have I received anything from VeriSign. Go Daddy at least has made the issue public. Have you contacted your registrants regarding it? It now seems it is more widespread than just Go Daddy registrants, but we, or at least I, still don't know if all non-VeriSign registrants were targeted. It is equally wrong in any case.

    As for Go Daddy being a significant threat, SnapNames State of the Domain Report says Go Daddy led in net new registrations in the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2001, and in January 2002. Of course most all registrars led VeriSign in this metric, and that is a threat to VeriSign.

    Regarding the WLS, as the price has yet to be finalized I don't know where you get the $70M/year figure. It isn't quite a done deal yet. Despite widespread opposition to the WLS (and I've slammed it here a few times, and am probably not done yet) ICANN might still not allow it to go ahead (yes, you read that right). -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predator by fnord
    Re: Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predator
    by fnord ({groy2k} {at} {yahoo.com}) on Saturday March 23 2002, @03:42PM (#5524)
    User #2810 Info
    Anon writes:
    You are dreaming if you think Verisign is not going forward with the WLS.
    I haven't said any such thing. I am well aware that VeriSign intends to go ahead. What will be interesting is what ICANN does with this request. VeriSign maintains it doesn't need consensus (while fudging the numbers to make it look as though they have majority approval amongst registrars). If ICANN brings in the one month grace period for expiring names that will take away much of the demand for expiring names, and much of the money VeriSign would make through the WLS. If ICANN allows the WLS to go ahead at all, but particularily in advance of initiating the grace period, then it will be just another example of ICANN's inability to increase competition and lessen monopoly behavior. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predator
    by fnord ({groy2k} {at} {yahoo.com}) on Tuesday March 26 2002, @07:24AM (#5559)
    User #2810 Info
    As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right, and if you are correct in your assertion, neither do more than two. And if you are correct, you'd think someone would have published the full-header email, or scans if it is snailmail. Can you point to any?

    I don't doubt that some other registrars have, or are, doing the same thing, but I haven't seen any evidence of it and I have a few domains registered with various registrars. I certainly haven't seen evidence anywhere that Go Daddy in particular, or all these other registrars (as you put it) in general, are doing the same thing. I think such actions by any registrar should be reported to the FTC (because ICANN is nominally in the US and has clear responsibility for allowing this to go on) and if both/either the registrant or registrar is located outside the US, to their relevant national equivalent(s).

    As I say, others doing the same thing doesn't make it right. I wouldn't have bothered responding to such fallacious reasoning, but might as well, seeing as I wanted to report that politechbot has more on this, as does geek.com. I guess VeriSign figures it can take a writedown on good will if it is already less than zero. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com