VeriSign and Icann: Operating "protection racket"?

**cyphix** · 03-02-2004, 10:55 AM

http://www.silicon.com/networks/webw...9118816,00.htm

**proproject** · 03-02-2004, 11:55 AM

I have not reviewed the agreements carefully so I have not taken a side. However, I think that the mature arguments are about who has the right to make the decision rather that what the best (most fair) decision should be. Anti-WLS folks should argue that Verisign is trying to change their fee on a whole class of registrations. No right to do that since that fee is set by ICANN. Pro-WLS should argue that WLS is a whole different service so it is not subject to the fee regulation. After all, backorder services will still be able to add-storm battle over any domains that delete without an WLS subscription.

I'm writing from the ICANN meeting in Rome so I might have a stronger opinion by the end of the week. PM me if you're here.

**cyphix** · 03-02-2004, 02:26 PM

Anti-WLS folks should argue that Verisign is trying to change their fee on a whole class of registrations. No right to do that since that fee is set by ICANN.

That would be a poor argument as you're not paying the fee for the registration, you're paying for the backorder service just like you do with Snaps Backorders & registration comes with it.

**Nexus** · 03-02-2004, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by cyphix

That would be a poor argument as you're not paying the fee for the registration, you're paying for the backorder service just like you do with Snaps Backorders & registration comes with it.

I'd agree with that. I'm not convinced Anti-WLS people would make that argument, but I have to say the objects have been all over the map, so I wouldn't doubt someone has tried that one.

~ Nexus