At 05:55 PM 07/10/2003, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:41:14PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5087139.html?tag=nefd_top
> The article makes me wonder if CNET is the press, or an outlet for press
> releases. The Internet community is almost uniform in expressing outrage
> for numerous REAL reasons, yet CNET says its from the Internet's technical
> "old guard".... Sorry, so where is the "new guard" calling for Verisign to
> come back with sitefinder ? Also CNET leaves un challenged the 'excuse of
> the day' that Verisign without site finder "will not be able to protect the
> Net's critical infrastructure"...
We've been covering the impact of SiteFinder since September 16. I didn't write that article (I was in transit from a conference in Canada) but I've written about five articles on SiteFinder so far, and I'll probably write another today based on the ICANN committee meeting.
Hi,
I think *your* articles are well done and are researched. However, I stand by my original criticism that this particular article was merely reporting one perspective on the issue in such as way as to make it appear as if it were a conduit for Verisign PR IMHO. The "old guard" label is a loaded term and smacks of judgement by your writer. Not quite calling it a "fringe group" or "special interest group" yet "old guard" vs "the network operators who run the Internet" certainly have different connotations.
Similarly, this repeating of Verisign claim as fact that its a minority of people who disagree with sitefinder and how it was launched is particularly maddening. Sorry, is there some alt NANOG group out there secretly saying that "gee, this site finder is great! Why didnt they do it before?" Or perhaps on a-slashdot, or a-IAB ?
I hope you continue to read News.com.
I will continue to read your articles but in general my estimate of news.com has dropped significantly.
---Mike
