| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
VeriSign's SiteFinder & ICANN Contracts--A Second Opinion
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 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'm glad we got past the question of whether the harm exists at all. Now it is merely a matter of placing a value on the damage.
There are two ways to measure this - one is to look at the loss of use based as a percentage of the period of the yearly registration period. And as you point out, if Verisign cranks down the TTL that time can be reduced.
The other measure, is to ask what price would Verisign have to pay to have that period of use if there were an evenhanded negotiation between Verisign and the registrant. Verisign's sitefinder doesn't allow the registrant to negotiate, but rather simply unilaterally acts to use the name. I doubt that a fairly negotiated price would be as low as 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
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
|
