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
This sort of not-for-profit is exactly what I proposed when the VeriSign discussion started. A non-technical response to a non-technical problem. Since my inital email, I've recruited a few other NANOG folks and put up a website: www.alt-servers.org. -Mike (Please excuse any formatting oddities, sent via OWA) -----Original Message----- From: Jared Mauch To: Henry Linneweh Cc: Paul Vixie; nanog@merit.edu Sent: 9/21/2003 12:28 AM Subject: Re: When is Verisign's registry contract up for renewal On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 11:23:04PM -0700, Henry Linneweh wrote: path.
It is time that neutral party is in charge -Henry R Linneweh
I was thinking this earlier this week. This is a public-trust that should be operated by people whose sole job is to keep it up and working, not by a dual-role entity as it is today. Perhaps we can get someone to make a not-for-profit for this sole role. - Jared
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 -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.