Hello, --- David Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > eh? Wait a sec -- isn't Network Solutions the .com registry operator?
No, Network Solutions used to be the .com registry operator long ago. It used to be that the registry had only one registrar, Network Solutions. Later, other registrars (including Tucows) were allowed to compete with Network Solutions at the consumer-facing level, with each charged $6/year at the wholesale level (the registry function). After VeriSign acquired NSI, and as a condition of retaining the wholesale registry business, agreed to divest itself of the Network Solutions registrar business. See: http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm "In the event that NSI completes the legal separation of ownership of its Registry Services business from its registrar business by divesting all the assets and operations of one of those businesses within 18 months after Effective Date to an unaffiliated third party that enters an agreement enforceable by ICANN and the Department of Commerce (i) not to be both a registry and a registrar in the Registry TLDs, and (ii) not to control, own or have as an affiliate any individual(s) or entity(ies) that, collectively, act as both a registry and a registrar in the Registry TLDs, the Expiration Date shall be extended for an additional four years, resulting in a total term of eight years. " VeriSign sold 85% of the company to Pivotal Equity in 2003: http://www.verisign.com/verisign-inc/news-and-events/news-archive/us-news-2003/page_200312181054389.html My understanding is that VeriSign has since sold the remaining 15% (couldn't find a link, maybe someone else can; I think I recall reading it on the GNSO Registrars mailing list) > And wouldn't that be just complaining to Network Solutions *about* > Network Solutions? No, see above. > But I'd be surprised and fascinated to hear that, in all the > card-shuffling, it was VeriSign and not Network Solutions that ended > up > controlling the .com registry! ...though I suppose that it hardly > matters. Even if they no longer own Network Solutions outright, > VeriSign would still hold a significant financial interest in its > former > property, making the difference between the two somewhat academic. No, see above. Indeed, Network Solutions was vehemently opposed to the recent .com agreement (as was most everyone else), that extending VeriSign's monopoly in perpetuity. See: http://www.thewhir.com/features/061206_Hearing_Held_Over_com_Dispute.cfm "Kicking off the side opposing the deal was Network Solutions CEO Champ Mitchell, who said that the .com deal "shocks the conscience." And that's our history lesson for today. :) If we want to "create history" on the 60-day registrar locks abuse, I think creating a precedent via the Transfer Dispte Resolution Policy: http://www.icann.org/dndr/tdrp/approved-providers.htm might be the way to go, as I mentioned in my prior post, either through a formal complaint to VeriSign, or to an arbitration provider. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ _______________________________________________ domains-gen mailing list [email protected] http://discuss.tucows.com/mailman/listinfo/domains-gen
