Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predatory domain expiration notices

You are dreaming if you think Verisign is not going forward with the WLS. Here's a note plucked from the OpenSRS discuss-list archives:

As most know, the DNSO GA and the RC (registrars) were overwhelmingly against the WLS proposal.

Not surprisingly given Verisign's history, they've ignored this opposition, and have proceeded to request pricing approval from ICANN.
See:

http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_comment_analysis.pdf

for their "spin" on things. Their conclusion:

"VGRS has submitted a request to ICANN for an amendment to Appendix G of the .com and .net registry agreements to add pricing for the WLS for a 12-month trial period."

Prior documents are at: http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls.html

The official registrar community's position is at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg02213.html

It's quite an exercise in faulty logic to read Verisign's attempts to massage the numbers. I don't know how they can, with a straight face, conclude that "consumers are better off". I never knew VGRS dealt with consumers -- I thought the Chinese wall meant VGRS only dealt with registrars... The only parties better off are Verisign and its partners, to the detriment of consumers and competing registrars. No attempt to quantify consumers' demands are made, yet all the visible opposition is dismissed as being "unrepresentative".

Oh well, we knew this was going to happen -- it's Verisign, remember. The arrogance of this monopoly makes Microsoft pale in comparison.

What's the appropriate procedure to submit comments now that ICANN is officially being made this request?

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Re: Verisign, Inc. sending deceptive and predator by Anonymous

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 Sunday March 24 2002, @06:49AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.

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