Oki all,
Delivery of RC mail to me is fairly desultory. Apparently there is an
earlier thread. Post-Rome the very purpose of the RC seems to me to be
doubtful (advocacy for registrars other than NetSol+4), and post-Elana
the process of the RC left me disinterested.
I'm particularly enamored by Ross' notion of what is going on on NANOG.
Cheers,
Eric
------- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-Date: Sun Jan 16 11:14:04 2005
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver.icann.org [192.0.35.121])
by nic-naa.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0GBDxgx036293
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:14:04 GMT
(envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Received: from greenriver.icann.org (greenriver [127.0.0.1])
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0GEx1Qg006202;
Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:01 -0800
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j0GEx0hJ006201;
Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:01 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: greenriver.icann.org: majordomo set sender to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] using -f
Received: from pechora.icann.org (pechora.icann.org [192.0.34.35])
by greenriver.icann.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0GEwxrw006198
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:59:00 -0800
Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net
[209.226.175.4])
by pechora.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0GEwBA16293
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 16 Jan 2005 06:58:11 -0800
Received: from [192.168.2.101] ([67.71.54.206])
by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net
(InterMail vM.5.01.06.10 201-253-122-130-110-20040306) with ESMTP
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:58:57 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:57:03 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Organization: Tucows Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Jeftovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Registrars Constituency <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [registrars] Re: panix.com hijacked
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
On 1/16/2005 12:29 AM Mark Jeftovic noted that:
> There's a thread on NANOG to the effect that panix.com has been
> hijacked from Dotster over to MelbourneIT and it has pretty
> well taken panix.com and its customers offline, see
> http://www.panix.net/
I don't see what you are looking at - .net and .com point to the same
place with no indication of anything awry...of course, I'm late to the
game and the DNS probably tells a different story...
>
> Looks like this may be among the first high-profile unauthorized
> transfer under the new transfer policy.
Looks like a bunch of guys on the NANOG list engaging in a lot of
conjecture without the benefit of a lot of facts.
> Maybe there needs to some sort of emergency reversion where at least the
> nameservers can be rolled back immediately while the contesting parties
> sort it out.
Might be interesting - what criteria would trigger the process?
- --
Regards,
-rwr
"In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one
indispensable condition for social progress."
- Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
------- End of Forwarded Message
