[registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS lookup service

[elliot noss]

I would frame the core question a little differently. For me it is 
something like "what is the contractual nature of the registry 
agreement?". IOW is it a contract for a fee to preform a service, or is 
it a broad delegation of the rights and benefits associated with a TLD?

This is the question that, IMHO, ICANN has been afraid to answer and I 
think here Verisign was silly enough to force them to. Boy if I was 
interested in the re-bid of .com or .net I would be licking my lips 
right about now.

To be clear, I am not putting this question to you to be answered Mike. 
I appreciate you would be ill advised to do so publically.

Regards

Michael D. Palage wrote:

>Ross,
>
>Thanks for the clarification of "loaded".
>
>>From a purely legal standpoint, ICANN has granted a registry (.MUSEUM) the
>contractual right to use wild cards in their registry operations. Therefore,
>there is a presumption that ICANN has condoned this service, either
>explicitly or by mistake.
>
>If, however, as you previously stated in your last email, ICANN staff just
>made an arbitrary decision without consulting the community. Then the next
>question you/community needs to ask is how do you undue this "mistake."
>
>Please keep the constructive comments coming, they are appreciated.
>
>Mike
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ross Wm. Rader [mailto:ross at tucows.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 11:13 AM
>>To: Michael D. Palage
>>Cc: registrars at dnso.org
>>Subject: Re: [registrars] Verisign change to operation of the .com DNS
>>lookup service
>>
>>
>>On 9/16/2003 11:00 AM Michael D. Palage noted that:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Ross,
>>>
>>>Thanks for the answers. I do not know about the questions being
>>>      
>>>
>>"loaded" but
>>    
>>
>>>they were meant to be tough questions (for both sides of the
>>>      
>>>
>>argument) that
>>    
>>
>>>would provide the quickest means of getting to the core issues.
>>>      
>>>
>>I should have been clearer about that remark. I mean "loaded" in the
>>sense that there seems to be a presumption that the service is desirable
>>and places the onus on the community to demonstrate why this is a bad
>>thing. Verisign is the one that needs to demonstrate why this is
>>desirable and how the benefits to the community will exceed currently
>>accepted practices resolvers.
>>
>>I don't think they can. Even if I am wrong and there are benefits to
>>doing things this way, it is simply not right to allow a corporation to
>>throw away 20 years of DNS best practices because they feel like it. I
>>want to be convinced, or I want it to go away.
>>
>>--
>>
>>
>>                        -rwr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>