ICANN and Verisign settle over SiteFinder
Said the flowerpot: "Oh no, not again..." http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm? campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc -C
* Chris Woodfield:
Said the flowerpot: "Oh no, not again..."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm? campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow (under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize ICANN's role). Two possible explanations: * ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a future Sitefinder review under the new process. * ICANN promised to grant VeriSign the DNSSEC root and .ARPA maintenance without tender (the "Root Server Management Transition Agreement" goes into that direction; actually, the .ARPA stuff is the interesting one). * VeriSign has recognized that they couldn't win in court, and suddenly want to play nice.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm? campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow (under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize ICANN's role).
They get to continue to be .COM registry forever as new agreement would extend to 2012 and then automatically extended further without formal process as it happened recently for .NET. They also are going to be able to increase registry fees for .COM by 7% per year which to put it in perspective can potentially be $2 increase 4 years from now.
Two possible explanations:
2+2=5, right? :)
* ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a future Sitefinder review under the new process.
* ICANN promised to grant VeriSign the DNSSEC root and .ARPA maintenance without tender (the "Root Server Management Transition Agreement" goes into that direction; actually, the .ARPA stuff is the interesting one).
* VeriSign has recognized that they couldn't win in court, and suddenly want to play nice.
-- William Leibzon Elan Networks william@elan.net
* william elan net:
They get to continue to be .COM registry forever as new agreement would extend to 2012 and then automatically extended further without formal process as it happened recently for .NET. They also are going to be able to increase registry fees for .COM by 7% per year which to put it in perspective can potentially be $2 increase 4 years from now.
So the deal makes indeed sense from a business perspective. Thanks.
Two possible explanations:
2+2=5, right? :)
Oops. 8-)
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
Two possible explanations:
2+2=5, right? :)
Oops. 8-)
<tongue location="cheek"> No, you got it right. The [third] option at the end, "play nice", has only a passing association to the realm of possibility. </tongue> -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow (under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize ICANN's role).
As someone else noted, a perpetual cash cow in .COM with 7%/year escalator clause.
* ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a future Sitefinder review under the new process.
Nope, there's this complex process with outside experts to review any new proposed sitefinder like thing.
* ICANN promised to grant VeriSign the DNSSEC root and .ARPA maintenance without tender (the "Root Server Management Transition Agreement" goes into that direction; actually, the .ARPA stuff is the interesting one).
My reading is the opposite, ICANN will create the root zone now.
* VeriSign has recognized that they couldn't win in court, and suddenly want to play nice.
Quite possibly and don't be silly. More concretely, they probably decided they were unlikely to win more than this agreement gives them. R's, John
they get a back-door amendment to their contract, with no public process, that extends it and allows them to charge more in the future On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Chris Woodfield:
Said the flowerpot: "Oh no, not again..."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm? campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow (under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize ICANN's role).
Two possible explanations:
* ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a future Sitefinder review under the new process.
* ICANN promised to grant VeriSign the DNSSEC root and .ARPA maintenance without tender (the "Root Server Management Transition Agreement" goes into that direction; actually, the .ARPA stuff is the interesting one).
* VeriSign has recognized that they couldn't win in court, and suddenly want to play nice.
-- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<--
participants (6)
-
Chris Woodfield -
Florian Weimer -
John Levine -
Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law -
Todd Vierling -
william(at)elan.net