| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Why Verisign Isn't Worried
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 6 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
I agree completely.
Just one more thought, doesn't the .net registry come up for a renewal/redelegation process in 2004? I'm pretty sure it does. ICANN could initiate the .net renewal/redelegation process; have it be open, competitive, and transparent; etc. It doesn't necessarily need to prove that VeriSign is "not qualified" -- it could simply opt to go with another equally qualified provider, enter into a new registry agreement with the winning bidder with a provision that states basically DNS wildcards won't be added without express, written consent from ICANN, and there you have it. VeriSign would still have .com, though -- until .com comes up for redelegation/renewal.
Perhaps our best chance is for Go Daddy or Popular Enterprises to win their lawsuits. :)
Cheers,
Doug
Doug Mehus
http://doug.mehus.info/ [mehus.info]
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| |
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
|
