[62701] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When is Verisign's registry contract up for renewal
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry Linneweh)
Sun Sep 21 02:23:39 2003
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh@sbcglobal.net>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <g3vfrn40yz.fsf@sa.vix.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--0-1219893919-1064125384=:29357
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
My view would concur with this, these are really old battles starting back in the
netsol days and now the verisign has taken the same short sighted path.
It is time that neutral party is in charge
-Henry R Linneweh
Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com> wrote:
> > ICANN can seek specific performance of the agreement by Verisign, or
> > seek to terminate Verisign's contract as the .COM/.NET registry operator
> > and transfer the operation to a successor registry.
>
> Quiet honestly I'd like to see all of the GTLD servers given to neutral
> companies, ones that ARE not registrars. [...]
frankly i am mystified as to why icann awards registry contracts to
for-profit entities. registrars can be for-profit, but registries should
be non-profit or public-trust or whatever that specific nation's laws allow
for in terms of requirements for open accounting, uniform dealing, and
nonconflict with the public's interest.
--
Paul Vixie
--0-1219893919-1064125384=:29357
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<DIV>My view would concur with this, these are really old battles starting back in the </DIV>
<DIV>netsol days and now the verisign has taken the same short sighted path.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is time that neutral party is in charge</DIV>
<DIV>-Henry R Linneweh<BR><BR><B><I>Paul Vixie <vixie@vix.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>> > ICANN can seek specific performance of the agreement by Verisign, or<BR>> > seek to terminate Verisign's contract as the .COM/.NET registry operator<BR>> > and transfer the operation to a successor registry.<BR>> <BR>> Quiet honestly I'd like to see all of the GTLD servers given to neutral<BR>> companies, ones that ARE not registrars. [...]<BR><BR>frankly i am mystified as to why icann awards registry contracts to<BR>for-profit entities. registrars can be for-profit, but registries should<BR>be non-profit or public-trust or whatever that specific nation's laws allow<BR>for in terms of requirements for open accounting, uniform dealing, and<BR>nonconflict with the public's interest.<BR>-- <BR>Paul Vixie</BLOCKQUOTE>
--0-1219893919-1064125384=:29357--
