| |
Verisign to sell off Network Solutions, keep tlds
by Decius at 9:15 am EDT, Oct 13, 2003 |
] But Sclavos also said he thinks much of the fury against
] VeriSign originates with companies that compete in the
] retail sale of domain names. Severing that part of the
] business could, in theory, blunt some of the critics. The last time Verisign talked to the press about something it "might" do it was a week before SiteFinder went online. Given that this is the Mercury News they are literally fishing for buyers here. They do a poor job of spinning the sale. NetSol is loosing market share by the barrel. Reason? Netsol charges several times what their closest competitors charge for the same service. Doing business with them is like flushing money down the toilet. In general the margins in the DNS business are very small and everyone struggles. There are basically too many players, but because changing "providers" is so difficult no one goes out of business. They just hang by threads. I was always under the impression that the Verisign/Netsol deal made sense because these guys were selling higher end services into their customers, like security services and certificates, and they could tack the domain names on as a sort of one stop shopping. Basically make it convenient for businesses who might be willing to ignore playing a $30 premium. I think that offering registrations makes sense as it goes along side offering certificates, and without the family of services Verisign offers NetSol will die a quick death out in the cold on its own. This business is obviously not going to drive growth for them, but it might sweeten their margins. I imagine that it might be picked up by a competing registrar just to own the customers. The PR position is, frankly, interesting. Instead of, say, treating the engineering community with some respect, they claim to think they can solve their problems by jettisoning another problem that the community has with them. Geeks hate NetSol because we all had domains from them back when it was free, and we recall not so fondly when we got that first bill (was it $80 something?). Most of the people who work in the alternative registrars did so because they felt that it was important to take control of this out of NetSol's hands. However, getting rid of NetSol is not going to help Verisign now. Their executives continue, even in this article, to sling mud at the technical community in an attempt to discredit them. Why would any move they made improve their position in the eyes of a community they apparently think is totally insignificant to their business? Fact is, it won't, and they know it. Verisign is pursuing this for another reason, which is not discussed in this article. Most of the restrictions on their management of the tlds which were referenced in ICANN's demand that SiteFinder be shutdown are restrictions on anti-competitive behavior vis-a-vis other domain name registrars. If Verisign is NOT a domain name registrar then they don't need to worry about creating a level playing field between the access they have, and the access that other domain name registrars have. Many of the restrictions on their activity in the ICANN contracts would go away. Its hard to say if this move is specifically directed at making SiteFinder legal, or if Verisign has any other tricks waiting in the wings if the contractual concerns with SiteFinder are resolved in their favor. What IS clear is that this is an important move in the fight over SiteFinder, and its implications could be significant for those who don't wish to see the "service" restarted. |
| |
RE: Verisign to sell off Network Solutions, keep tlds
by Rattle at 1:00 pm EDT, Oct 13, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] The last time Verisign talked to the press about something it
] "might" do it was a week before SiteFinder went online. Given
] that this is the Mercury News they are literally fishing for
] buyers here. I concur with your analysis. This is the "for sale" sign.
] However, getting rid of NetSol is not going to help Verisign
] now. Their executives continue, even in this article, to sling
] mud at the technical community in an attempt to discredit
] them. Why would any move they made improve their position in
] the eyes of a community they apparently think is totally
] insignificant to their business? Fact is, it won't, and they
] know it. I don't think they are expecting it to help them per say. Its just NetSol is screwed. There is no fixing NetSol. In terms of branding, its one of the most hated companies in the history of the Internet. The longer someone has has involvement with the Internet, the more they hate NetSol. And I think I can accurately say that blanket statement. Its just no longer of any use to them. Its a problem thats going to do nothing but adversely effect their balance sheet. They have customer exodus, and in the end, the only way to save any of the company's value is to put it in the hands of someone else who may be able to retain it. They certainly cannot.
] Verisign is pursuing this for another reason, which is not
] discussed in this article. Most of the restrictions on
] their management of the tlds which were referenced in ICANN's
] demand that SiteFinder be shutdown are restrictions on
] anti-competitive behavior vis-a-vis other domain name
] registrars. If Verisign is NOT a domain name registrar then
] they don't need to worry about creating a level playing field
] between the access they have, and the access that other domain
] name registrars have. Many of the restrictions on their
] activity in the ICANN contracts would go away. Its amazing how transparent it is..
] Its hard to say if this move is specifically directed at
] making SiteFinder legal, or if Verisign has any other tricks
] waiting in the wings if the contractual concerns with
] SiteFinder are resolved in their favor. What IS clear is that
] this is an important move in the fight over SiteFinder, and
] its implications could be significant for those who don't wish
] to see the "service" restarted. They definitely have more tricks up their sleeve. There is another shoe they want to drop. VeriSign is a $3B company. SiteFinder is a $20M product, at best, according to all the articles I've been seeing. There is more to this or they would not be risking so much.. My theory, is that if they can pull off "owning" the com/net roots.. They have more products that are all based off being able to track queries as they fly by. They keep talking about security products that are "proactive", that can detect an attack before it happens, etc.. I think they already have some kinda product line, and they just need to "win" this battle over the top of the DNS system, then they can roll it. I can think of another power player in this that would be very interested in being able to track DNS queries without oversight. A power player that if I thought I had on my side, I'd feel safe taking these kinds of risks VeriSign is. |
|
| | |
RE: Verisign to sell off Network Solutions, keep tlds
by Decius at 1:36 pm EDT, Oct 13, 2003 |
Rattle wrote:
] I don't think they are expecting it to help them per say. Its
] just NetSol is screwed. There is no fixing NetSol. In terms
] of branding, its one of the most hated companies in the
] history of the Internet. The longer someone has has
] involvement with the Internet, the more they hate NetSol. And
] I think I can accurately say that blanket statement. One wonders why they don't get the hint. :) |
|
| |
RE: Verisign to sell off Network Solutions, keep tlds
by bucy at 4:59 pm EDT, Oct 13, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] ] But Sclavos also said he thinks much of the fury against
] ] VeriSign originates with companies that compete in the
] ] retail sale of domain names. Severing that part of the
] ] business could, in theory, blunt some of the critics.
]
] Verisign is pursuing this for another reason, which is not
] discussed in this article. Most of the restrictions on
] their management of the tlds which were referenced in ICANN's
] demand that SiteFinder be shutdown are restrictions on
] anti-competitive behavior vis-a-vis other domain name
] registrars. If Verisign is NOT a domain name registrar then
] they don't need to worry about creating a level playing field
] between the access they have, and the access that other domain
] name registrars have. Many of the restrictions on their
] activity in the ICANN contracts would go away.
]
] Its hard to say if this move is specifically directed at
] making SiteFinder legal, or if Verisign has any other tricks
] waiting in the wings if the contractual concerns with
] SiteFinder are resolved in their favor. What IS clear is that
] this is an important move in the fight over SiteFinder, and
] its implications could be significant for those who don't wish
] to see the "service" restarted. Who is NetSol's .com/.net contract with? Dept. of Commerce? How about not renew it or take it away from them? It is *crazy* that .com/.net should be run by a for-profit company which will be incented to do dumbass things like sitefinder ... it should be operated by a non-profit/non-government organization, overseen by ICANN/IAB/IETF/etc. And how much is being able to run sitefinder really worth to verisign, anyway? Is it really worth getting involed in a nasty legal battle with ICANN and *making everyone that actually runs the net hate them*?? |
|
|
|
