[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or
At 9:19 AM -0700 10/16/03, Owen DeLong wrote:
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
No, that's correct. I just can't keep them straight in my fingers
(and neither can Veris
ut there.
>> Does it make sense to pay Verislime money to fund sitefinder and our
>> headaches?
>>
>> To change this: what else can we do to prevent this? Does the last BIND
>> version truly break sitefinder?
>>
>>
>> Later,
>> Jim
>>
>&
The back end DNS is the registry service. What you are saying they are
doing is selling the REGISTRAR business and keeping the REGISTRY.
Or did I miss something?
Owen
--On Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:46 AM -0400 Kee Hinckley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECT
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:16:53 CDT, Andrew D Kirch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of
> credibility given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably
> existed for quite a bit longer than a .biz or .info.
Most of my s
ECTED]
->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM
->To: nanog list
->Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
->
->
->
->Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain
->registrations those of us
->on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
> on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
We've been moving all our domains to OpenSRS for a year, but doing it as
they come up for renewal.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Kee Hinckley wrote:
> This point just became moot.
> Versign is selling the registry business. Network Solutions is being
> spun off. They retain the back end DNS.
They're selling the _registrar_ business off. They retain the _registry_
and the associated stuff to the bac
I would certainly say there's an elitism, or perhaps a higher level of credibility
given to a .com or .net site, due to the fact that they've probably existed for quite
a bit longer than a .biz or .info. Although looking at that list I might note that I
probably would include .us with .com and
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In this day and age, people don't guess URLs anymore by sticking .com at
> the end of a word so there is no longer any advantage to using a .com
> domain name over a .biz or .info or .us.
FWIW, I still do as it is faster than google. I bet that tha
At 3:18 PM +0100 10/16/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might
I don't know if this is a related move or not, but I just received an
email from Verisign that they are selling NetSol. A snippet:
Dear Valued Network Solutions(R) Customer,
Today VeriSign, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive
agreement to sell Network Solutions to a new entity
> Verisign obviously doesn't want the Registrar
> business, or they would have found out a way
> to combine all those accounts when we asked.
You do know they just this morning announced that they're selling the
Registrar business, don't you?
Ray
--
Ray Bellis, MA(Oxon) - Technical Director
co
>Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of
us
>on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
>all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
>across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
)TELLURIAN
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Allen Simpson
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:45 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Just out of curiousity, I
Miles Fidelman wrote:
>
> Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
> on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
> all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
> across (though it might also backfire - push
Miles Fidelman wrote:
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign
nal Message-
->From: Miles Fidelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
->Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:24 AM
->To: nanog list
->Subject: Re: more on VeriSign to revive redirect service
->
->
->
->Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain
->registrations those of us
-
What I think will be interesting is who has the bind patch this
time around. The first time many companies didn't deploy the bind
patch for reasons ranging from taking a few days to study the impact
to not being able to deploy new software on their nameservers that
quickly to not being able to ge
Just out of curiousity, I wonder how many domain registrations those of us
on nanog represent? Contract sanctions from ICANN are one thing, taking
all of our business elsewhere might also be effective at getting a point
across (though it might also backfire - pushing Verisign to be even more
agre
Err.. at least in the meeting, the VeriSlime carefully evaded
giving any quantifiable answer as to warning time. I have no idea
what they spun to the press afterwards.
What I observed was they started out cocky...as the meeting went on
and the questioning got pointed, they got snippy and defensiv
21 matches
Mail list logo
