[63618] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign on Process
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Wed Oct 8 15:03:38 2003
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310081449070.7012-100000@vista.av8.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:59:42 -0400
To: nanog@merit.org, <ST-ISC@MAIL.ABANET.ORG>,
<netizens@columbia.edu>
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 2:51 PM -0400 10/8/03, Dean Anderson wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> >VeriSign's vice president for its registry service. Citing concerns
>> >of proprietary information and competitive advantage, he added that
>> >he didn't think he could guarantee any advance notice of similar
>> >changes in the future.
>>
>>
>> Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets
>> the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around
>> competitive advantage.
>
>This is incorrect. Verisign is not a monopoly. There are many registrars
>of .net and .com domain names which compete with Verisign.
>
> --Dean
It is not a monopoly in its regiSTRAR function.
It is a monopoly as regiSTRY of .net and .com. It couldn't have
inserted the wildcards if it wasn't. Having control of the TLD
servers makes you a monopoly for that TLD.
