[71592] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Fri Jun 18 17:05:04 2004
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 22:04:26 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: John Neiberger <John.Neiberger@efirstbank.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <s0d2c547.052@fstest05.fb>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions
> that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for
> short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term
> reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as examples.
Hmm the volumes and costs involved are more than a short term financial gain
imho, I'd say this represented long term large income and pretty easy money too.
(imho) I'd also say that you overestimate the bad reputation.. the nanog
community isnt that large when you consider the global market using verisign for
various services, and often commercial decisions to use verisign are made by
non-technical folks not on nanog
if i was a commercial vp at verisign, i'd probably be thinking in a similar
manner, they are in a unique position and unique sales points means big money in
this marketplace
Steve
(anti-flame disclaimer - i'm not a commerical person, and my logic only outlines
the reasoning behind having as neutral a body as possible operating these kind
of services)
