Thursday, Thursday, January 03, 2002, 10:43:12 AM, Robert L Mathews wrote:
> At 1/2/02 6:55 PM, Charles Daminato wrote: >>Not that I'm personally defending the VeriSign proposed system >>but... (read through)... > <snip> >>Well, ownership isn't in question. If there is no "subscription" on the >>name, it simply drops into the registry - if there is, the registration >>falls to the next in line. It's like having a book or a movie on >>reservation. > Yeah. Again, I don't really want to defend Verisign, but the reality is > that they "own" deleted .com domain names one way or another, and they're No, they don't. They own a right to administer the .com namespace, but they do not "own" the TLD, so there is no claim of "ownership" in the TLD or second level names under it. Merely a right to administer it subject to contracts and oversight (though admittedly when they were permitted to renegotiate that contract with very little public review and comment, which they did intentionally at the last moment to prevent any real chance for public review and comment, they did gain a lot of leeway that they didn't have before). -- Best regards, William X Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --
