I'm thinking our only hope is: 1) Some US Senator buys a domain name from Verisign and then tries to transfer it.
or 2) Once the US Government is finished with Microsoft they will start looking for another corporation (Verisign) to go after. Verisign won't change unless someone makes them. ICANN (or I CANN't) seems rather ineffective and the court system can be quite expensive. (And that's assuming anyone would even bother trying to take some of these rather vague contracts, policies, agreements, etc. into a court of law.) Dennis Hisey ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Chuck Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 12:55 PM Subject: Re: Domain name quagmire > Hi Elliot, > > The points you make are valid. As well, i am still quite suspicious about > how Icann operates and who's interests are being served. In this respect i > am not convinced that certain fundamentals have changed. > > regards, > Swerve > > > From: "Elliot Noss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:28:27 -0500 > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chuck Hatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: Domain name quagmire > > > > Let's all not forget that in two years retail prices are much lower, service > > levels are much higher and innovation is much greater, all while the > > incumbant monopoly has gone from 100% to somewhere in the low 20's%. > > > > To say nothing has changed is not accurate. > > > > Regards > > > > Elliot Noss > > Tucows inc. > > 416-538-5494 > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2002 10:43 AM > >> To: Chuck Hatcher > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: Re: Domain name quagmire - was Scott Allen (sic) is full... > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Chuck Hatcher wrote: > >> > >>> With the new year as a traditional time to reflect on the past, I am > >>> beginning to feel less than proud to be a part of the domain > >> name business. > >>> It seems that in the past year so many instances of registrars, > >> registries, > >>> and ICANN behaving badly have come to light that I have to > >> wonder what the > >>> future will bring. I am no fan of government regulation or > >> interference, > >> > >> More of the same I would imagine. I have been monitoring this show for > >> some time - at least now 4 or 5 years - and nothing has changed. And I > >> expect it will get worse. > >> > >>> and in the case of the Internet, what government would have > >> jurisdiction, > >>> anyway? But this industry desperately needs to get a handle on > >> the issue of > >>> ethical business practices, and in my opinion this means structuring > >>> policies that will avoid any appearance of impropriety. > >> > >> Won't happen and for that matter can't happen. ICANN and it's associates > >> are very much like a government bureacracy. And as we all have come to > >> know in our respective lifetimes government bureacracies are like > >> tombstones. Example: the Ministry of Environment marks the death of our > >> environment, the Minitries of Labour mark the grave of employment and the > >> Ministry of "anything else" almost always marks the grave of "anything > >> else". > >> > >> The DNS by it's very nature requires open and effective co-operation > >> between internet operators. Under these circumstance it is easy to show > >> that ICANN is not the answer. And this is slowly being recognized by > >> others. The Chinese no longer use the US root system to resolve, no does > >> the various associates of New.net or the numerous alternative root > >> systems. > >> > >> Two years ago non USG root system controlled only 5% of internet > >> resolution. No that number is about 20% - 30%. > >> > >> So I expect someday we'll be able to put a few flowers on ICANN's grave. > >> > >> regards > >> joe baptista > >> > >> > > > >
