On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I would like to thank all of you for your support while I worked
at VeriSign.
Hi there - what team were you on? I joined VeriSign about 2 months ago
and I am on Network West.
Thanks,
John
--
John A. Kilpatrick
Folks,
Since my friend Gadi brought it up, I left VeriSign on January 3 after
3 years of solid employment. It was a good run. I was asked to move
to Dulles, VA and I declined for personal reasons. I live in Boston, MA.
and was a commuter to the DC area for the most part.
I've taken a pos
ancialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
(under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize
ICANN's role).
Two possible explanations:
* ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a
>I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
>(under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize
>ICANN's role).
As someone else noted, a perpetual cash cow in .COM with 7%/year
escalator clause.
> * ICANN signalled a positi
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Two possible explanations:
> >
> > 2+2=5, right? :)
>
> Oops. 8-)
No, you got it right. The [third] option at the end, "play nice", has only
a passing association to the realm of possibility.
--
-- Todd Vierling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL P
* william elan net:
> They get to continue to be .COM registry forever as new agreement
> would extend to 2012 and then automatically extended further without
> formal process as it happened recently for .NET. They also are going
> to be able to increase registry fees for .COM by 7% per year whi
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
(under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize
ICA
* Chris Woodfield:
> Said the flowerpot: "Oh no, not again..."
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
> campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
(under the agreement, th
Said the flowerpot: "Oh no, not again..."
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
campaign_id=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
-C
> >I don't know if it is the repeated "ICANN can't be trusted / is corrupt"
> >messaging, or the sensitivity of the .NET "rebid" (aka VGRS deregulation)
> >that got the prompt action --
>
> It's more that ICANN has figured out that registrars are where all
> their revenue comes from, and if they
>I don't know if it is the repeated "ICANN can't be trusted / is corrupt"
>messaging, or the sensitivity of the .NET "rebid" (aka VGRS deregulation)
>that got the prompt action --
It's more that ICANN has figured out that registrars are where all
their revenue comes from, and if they dragged thei
.
IMHO the entire issue comes down to something like this
(please don't nail me on details, it's a coarsely drawn picture):
- ICANN issued a formal request for proposals
- Some registries-to-be - including Verisign - made offers
- ICANN chose Verisign (no speculation about th
FWIW, we did a "Major Protest" at the Rome meeting about Sitefinder and it
took Vint months to come to the conclusion that it (interposition on the
lookup error semantics) was not just a business decision.
I don't know if it is the repeated "ICANN can't be trusted / is corrupt"
messaging, or the
Via Netcraft:
[snip]
ICANN and VeriSign will consider changes to the new
.net registry agreement in response to a mass protest
by major domain name registrars, who said the deal
represented a "breach of trust" between ICANN and the
registrar community. In response to a joint prote
Can someone with verisign operations please contact me offlist.
Thanks!
--
/m
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." - Marvin Minsky
ICANN's announcement is at:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08jun05.htm
See also:
http://icann.org/tlds/dotnet-reassignment/net-rfp-process-summary-08jun05.pdf
And so much for that.
Eric
sponder who isn't known to support them be allowed a retry with
no extensions if it responds with such an RCODE. [...]
Matt
--
Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services
> ... I repeat: One don't have to "support" EDNS0, just don't report it as
> error, like broken routers does with ECN. And in this "mode of
> operations" there's no MORE ways to abuse it for the said purpose than
> currently exists.
please actually read RFC 2671 before you ask any questions abo
* Michael Tokarev:
>> EDNS0 can be easily abused for traffic amplication purposes. 8-(
>
> Root and TLD nameservers rarely have large answers to queries to
> exceed 512 bytes.
The miscreants have partial write access to most TLD zones, so they
can create record sets whose size approaches or exce
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Michael Tokarev:
>
>
>>Well ok, I know it's kinda expected -- "i don't understand what you're
>>asking for, can't even repeat your question". But the next question
>>is -- *why*?
>
> EDNS0 can be easily abused for traffic amplication purposes. 8-(
Root and TLD namese
* Michael Tokarev:
> Well ok, I know it's kinda expected -- "i don't understand what you're
> asking for, can't even repeat your question". But the next question
> is -- *why*?
EDNS0 can be easily abused for traffic amplication purposes. 8-(
Mark Andrews wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>>Noticied today. All Verisign's GTLD servers broke
>>EDNS0 (RFC2671). Here's how it looks like:
[]
>>;; received 12 bytes response from 192.5.6.30 port 53
>>;; unexpected number of entries in QUERY section: 0
>>;; ->>HEADER<<- o
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>Noticied today. All Verisign's GTLD servers broke
>EDNS0 (RFC2671). Here's how it looks like:
>
>query:
>
>$ dnsget -t mx -vv microsoft.net. -n 192.5.6.30
>;; trying microsoft.net.
>;; sending 42 bytes query to 192.5.6.30 port 53
>;; ->>HEADER<<- opco
Noticied today. All Verisign's GTLD servers broke
EDNS0 (RFC2671). Here's how it looks like:
query:
$ dnsget -t mx -vv microsoft.net. -n 192.5.6.30
;; trying microsoft.net.
;; sending 42 bytes query to 192.5.6.30 port 53
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 64471, size: 42
;; fl
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> on 1/19/05 9:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here is the copy of the email Melbourne IT received.
>
> Thanks for providing a copy of the e-mail Bruce. You've been
> extraordinarily forthcoming on NANOG. I
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Richard Parker wrote:
> on 1/19/05 9:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here is the copy of the email Melbourne IT received.
>
> Thanks for providing a copy of the e-mail Bruce. You've been
> extraordinarily forthcoming on NANOG. I wish that Dotster, a
on 1/19/05 9:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here is the copy of the email Melbourne IT received.
Thanks for providing a copy of the e-mail Bruce. You've been
extraordinarily forthcoming on NANOG. I wish that Dotster, as the losing
registrar, was as willing to discuss the hij
PROTECTED] Sun Jan 9 12:40:35 2005
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from verisign-grs.org (snoopy.verisign-grs.net
[192.153.247.4])
by galahad.inww.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id j091eYgt003545
for <>; Sun, 9 Jan 2005
12:40:35
+1100 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Alexei Roudnev wrote:
> What happen if someone stole 'aol.com'domain tomorrow? Or 'microsoft.com'?
> How much damage will be done until this sleeping behemots wake up, set up a
> meeting (in Tuesday I believe - because Monday is a holiday), make any
> decision, open a toicket
On 16.01 16:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>
> One could almost think this hijack was timed to the release of the ICANN
> "Requests Public Comments on Experiences with Inter-Registrar Transfer
> Policy" from Jan 12:
> http://www
On 16.01 16:34, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
>
> One could almost think this hijack was timed to the release of the ICANN
> "Requests Public Comments on Experiences with Inter-Registrar Transfer
> Policy" from Jan 12:
> http://www
- because Monday is a holiday), make any
> > decision, open a toicket, pass thru change control and restore domain? 5
> > days?
>
> with due respect to panix (i knew of panix before i ever knew of aol, even
> living in europe), i imagine another bigger 'behemoth', as y
am would be solved forever if ...]
>
>
> There is a fundamental choice of jurisdictions question. Is ICANN the
> correct venue for ajudication, or is there another venue? This is what
> recourse to the "ask a real person" mechanism assumes, that talking to
> a human being
he better choice.
Bill made this comment:
> Since folks have been working on this for hours, and according to
> posts on NANOG, both MelbourneIT and Verisign refuse to do anything
> for days or weeks, would it be a good time to take drastic action?
>
> Think of what we'd do about
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Petra Zeidler
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 6:28 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: seed resolvers? Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
Hi,
Thus wrote Alexei Roudnev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> What happen if someone stole 'aol.com'domai
Hi,
Thus wrote Alexei Roudnev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> What happen if someone stole 'aol.com'domain tomorrow? Or 'microsoft.com'?
> How much damage will be done until this sleeping behemots wake up, set up a
> meeting (in Tuesday I believe - because Monday is a holiday), make any
> decision, open
--On Sunday, January 16, 2005 07:40 + Thor Lancelot Simon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The purported current admin contact appears to be a couple in Las Vegas
who are probably the victims of a joe job. A little searching will
reveal that people by that name really *do* live at the address giv
- Original Message -
From: "Alexei Roudnev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "William Allen Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 4:07 AM
Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
>
> I addition, there is a go
I addition, there is a good rule for such situations:
- first, return everything to _previous_ state;
- having it fixed in previous state, allow time for laywers, disputes and so
on to resolve a problem.
It makes VeriSign position very strange (of course, it is dumb clueless
behemot as it was
Since folks have been working on this for hours, and according to
posts on NANOG, both MelbourneIT and Verisign refuse to do anything
for days or weeks, would it be a good time to take drastic action?
Think of what we'd do about a larger ISP, or the Well, or really any
serious financial t
- Original Message -
From: "Thor Lancelot Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:40 AM
Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
--- snip ---
> I don't know if these ar
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:22:59AM -0500, Paul G wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Thor Lancelot Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:04 AM
> Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
>
- Original Message -
From: "Thor Lancelot Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
>
> Alexis Rosen tried to send this to NANOG earlier this evening but it
> lo
ervers and been replaced with the hijacker's records.
Note that we contacted VeriSign both directly and through intermediaries
well known to their ops staff, in both cases explaining that we suspect
a security compromise (technical or human) of the registration systems
either at MelbourneIT or at
On 3 Dec 2004, at 08:52, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
December 1, 2004 -- (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Internet
security company and domain registry operator VeriSign Inc.
(verisign.com) announced on Wednesday tiat it has released
the Domain Name Industry Brief for the third quarter of
2004
December 1, 2004 -- (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) -- Internet
security company and domain registry operator VeriSign Inc.
(verisign.com) announced on Wednesday tiat it has released
the Domain Name Industry Brief for the third quarter of
2004, noting the registration of 5.1 million new domain
names
eth.
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:46:07AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is
> > assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign.
> > When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue.
>
ollis wrote:
> So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is
> assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign.
> When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue.
The holding company must be making money from the patent to demonstrate the
val
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:01:46PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > If the patent is strong enough, wouldnt some patent attorney be willing to
> > defend it on a contingency basis?
> > With the potential $$ in a patent violation judgemen
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 04:01:46PM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> If the patent is strong enough, wouldnt some patent attorney be willing to
> defend it on a contingency basis?
>
> With the potential $$ in a patent violation judgement against verisign, I
> would think attorneys wo
ays to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from
> >doing anything useful with it at all...
> It would only be useful if those people were also in a position to
> vigorously defend said patents when (and if) they were infringed.
> / Mat
If the patent is strong enoug
> It would only be useful if those people were also in a position to
> vigorously defend said patents when (and if) they were infringed.
assign the patents to icann, to the eff, to the registrar constituency ...
Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
Wouldnt it be beautiful if a bunch of people patented the hell out of
various ways to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from
doing anything useful
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Paul Wouters wrote:
> Unfortunately, SiteFinder did not have such a destructive effect as we
> had all wanted it to have. Statistics in our network showed no
> significant increase in dns traffic. Especially if you compare it
> against things like SoBig:
>
> http://www.xtdnet
upon to parrot
> > somebody else's point of view caused you to laugh so hard you spewed
> > coffee all over your keyboard while reading the above tidbits, then
> > send the repair bill to verisign, not me. i'm just the messenger.)
>
> Unfortunately, SiteFinder d
s to keep a root server
operator from doing something, statistically speaking at least, is to tell
them that some other root server operator is doing it.
> >> Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from
> >> circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD op
> Remember, there are 13 IPs no one can get around - no other "TLD" to
> register your domain name.
>
> Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from
> circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
we'd have to agre
t any of the "alternative
root" operators instead. YMMV.
Let's confine the discussion to the 99.99% of us who use the Internet
.. uh .. "normally". (Best description I could think up.)
I mean, they are called "whackos" for a reason.
Flipped on its head, what's
head, what's to stop the root operators from
> circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
root server operators don't control the root zone, they only publish it.
some combination of itu (via the iso3166 process), icann/iana, ietf/iab,
and us-DoC are the folks you'd go to if you wanted a toplevel wildcard.
--
Paul Vixie
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> PS: I will patent it myself to prevent Versign from doing this.
Wouldnt it be beautiful if a bunch of people patented the hell out of
various ways to exploit dns wildcarding, thus preventing verisign from
doing anything useful with it at
Flipped on its head, what's to stop the root operators from
circumventing anything Verisign or any other TLD operator does?
--
TTFN,
patrick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Loftis) writes:
> ...
> The BIND source was modified in response to CUSTOMERS REQUESTS. ...
actually, it was multiple credible threats of codeforking that got this done.
(as i explained in the press at that time, "isc cherishes our relevance.")
--
Paul Vixie
Paul Vixie wrote:
also, to me, as a domain holder under .com who uses my domain for more than
just a web site, i can't tolerate the lack of RCODE=3 when a "nearby" name
is used by mistake. verisign promised not to use the connections for anything
nefarious, but they are not a
7;re paying to do it.
in the presence of a wildcard and paid advertising, (a) no longer holds and
there is no way to do (b). if sitefinder returns, i'd expect to have to find
a new parent domain, who has no wildcard-like keyword system, just for risk
management reasons. some domain holders migh
I'm not a lawyer but I still think businesses have a valid lawsuit against
Verisign for whatever the legal term is for using their copyrighted names
and likenesses. With SiteFinder it guarantees Verisign 'owns' any domain a
particular company may no have yet purchased until such
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> (and if the idea that kc or woolf could be depended upon to parrot
> somebody else's point of view caused you to laugh so hard you spewed
> coffee all over your keyboard while reading the above tidbits, then
> send the repair bill to
> PS. I am excited - Vixie as a co-conspirator... Vixie, you can be proud -:).
i'm not, though. not proud, and not a co-conspirator. this whole thing
makes me want to puke. the worst thing is, the people i know inside
verisign seem to wish i wouldn't take it so personally. but i
to issue a cease-and-desist to VGRS for
SiteFinder. That got an EAGAIN (you are wrong, we're fast enough) from Cerf,
and an ENOCLUE from Twomey.
For the original, look to:
http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-report-09jul04.pdf
See also
http://www.icann.org/legal/verisign-v-icann-m
For anyone who cares:
"A panel of experts convened by the nonprofit organization that manages
the Internet's domain-name system today took aim at the company that
controls the popular "dot-com" and "dot-net" domains, issuing a report
concluding that a controversial search service designed to
Title: Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
Thanks, Dickson - next time I'll try to write exact text
from the very beginniong -:). This is _exactly_ what I want to say, with
examples I was too lazy to write myself.
To make Alexei's argument's syntax agree with the intended
semanti
Title: Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
Stephen J. Wilcox (SJW) wrote:
SJW> I do not believe there is any technical spec prohibiting this,
SJW> in fact that DNS can use a wildcard at any level is what enables
SJW> the facility.
It is not always the case that everything a spec defines, is in
-search-in-russian.relcom.net
(additional service).
Notice, that unwanted service (search in Verisign) violates ALL this cases,
making impossible flexible,
competitive processing of such requests,
Just again - DNS design, by RFC, do not include someone who thinks for you
and guess, whcih exactly name are you req
may be reasonable to provide a set of independent _technical_
> reviews, showing that ICANN plays a role of technical authority, just do not
> allowing to violate a protocols. For the second case (waiting lists), it is
> not technical issue, but it is anti-competitional attempt from Verisign a
ssue, but it is anti-competitional attempt from Verisign as
well. I can ask my Russian folks to review it as well (dr. Platonov, Dimitry
Burkov) but I am not sure, if it is of any use... Anyway, good review,
explaining history and revealing real ICANN role, should be done.
If VeriSign wish to deploy serv
> Just curious. How much would it differ from
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=icannwatch-20&path=tg/detail/-/0262134128/qid%3D1041619276/sr%3D1-1
>
> and
>
> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf
as i said, it can't be written by an ambulance-chaser or nobo
News
was published). I haven't really looked at Ruling the Root,
because I was turned off by Dave Crocker's review in IPJ.
But, anyway, as it appeared in 2002, I imagine it contains
little of the recent Verisign/Netsol "business." However,
I should most likely give Mueller
Just curious. How much would it differ from
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=icannwatch-20&path=tg/detail/-/0262134128/qid%3D1041619276/sr%3D1-1
and
http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf
?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Jonathan Slivko wrote:
>
> Maybe try these guys?
see http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/18/0334236&mode=nested
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
>
> OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts
> dismissed the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened
> since, and what is this about so
Linneweh) writes:
> ...
> It is amazing that one psrson Paul Vixie could be so intimidating that he
> must be intimidated and maligned as a conspirator in order to eliminate
> him as a potential threat because of his knowledge.
i'm not sure verisign cares whether they intimidat
Maybe try these guys?
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/governance/love.html
-- Jonathan
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:38:50 -0700, Peter H Salus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Paul (et al.),
>
> If you can find a willing publisher and an organization
> able to supply some funds, I would be delight
Paul (et al.),
If you can find a willing publisher and an organization
able to supply some funds, I would be delighted to
work on a "real" history of Internet "governance" since
RFCs 881-883.
(Most of the funds would be for travel, Xeroxing, etc.)
Peter
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Cook) writes:
> in my estimation [verisign] would like to control telecom by control of
> the numbers associated therewith.
>
> ...
>
> ... I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income -
> only grief. But, knowing what i k
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gordon Cook) writes:
> in my estimation [verisign] would like to control telecom by control of
> the numbers associated therewith.
>
> ...
>
> ... I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income -
> only grief. But, knowing what i k
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, John Neiberger wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions
> that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for
> short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term
> reputati
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 08:02:34PM +, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
>
> JN> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0600
> JN> From: John Neiberger
>
> JN> Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info)
> JN> is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic.
>
> It does look pre
.NET namespaces.
my employer was a bidder for .ORG, and gives away EPP software ("ISC
OpenReg"), so there's some overlap with the registry/registrar community
that verisign might be thinking of.
Didn't Verisign sell off the Registrar stuff, thus making OpenReg not
a competitor?
Owen
--
It is amazing that one psrson Paul Vixie could be so
intimidating that he must be intimidated and maligned
as a conspirator in order to eliminate him as a
potential threat because of his knowledge.
I find that pretty ironic that a billion dollar
corporation is that weak.
-Henry
--- Patrick
Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> > Um, unless I really missed something during this whole episode, that
> > was the only way TO disable it.
>
> Have the roots recurse and put a wildcard in for anything that does not
> resolve.
>
> Makes Paul
JN> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0600
JN> From: John Neiberger
JN> Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info)
JN> is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic.
It does look pretty ridiculous. ETRN, formail, procmail, Web-
based UIs, etc. have been around far
>It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with
>actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the
>potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a
good
>long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind
On Jun 18, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
verisign's official position throughout the sitefinder launch was
that "users
are free to disable it if they want to." they did NOT want this
characterized
as them shoving their sitefinder service down anybody's unwilling
throat. so
i don't
inder co-conspirator [...].
>
> Paul Vixie is an existing provider of competitive services for
> registry operations, including providing TLD domain name hosting
> services for ccTLDs and gTLDs, and a competitor of VeriSign for
> new registry ope
the vendor would issue the
feature. It is the administrators choice to use the feature. As such, it
is not the vendors fault in any way.
After the courts drop this one as well, I am curious what will be the next
Verisign idea. They (read: their lawyers) have proved themselves to be
full of bright
> Also, while drastic, filing suit
> doesn't preclude adults getting together and working out the the matter
> before anything makes it to court.
Having been a part of a few large lawsuits here, I can say that many judges
will force at least a conversation between signatories of both parties (
PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 17:25:08 +
PV> From: Paul Vixie
PV> my employer was a bidder for .ORG, and gives away EPP
PV> software ("ISC OpenReg"), so there's some overlap with the
PV> registry/registrar community that verisign might be thinking
PV> of.
I do
At 10:34 AM -0600 6/18/04, John Neiberger wrote:
>
>It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with
>actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation.
Hmm... I'm not going to try to defend Verisign (or ICANN for that matter),
but will note that t
PP software ("ISC
OpenReg"), so there's some overlap with the registry/registrar community
that verisign might be thinking of.
--
Paul Vixie
PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 16:44:41 +
PV> From: Paul Vixie
PV> i think they mean ns-ext.isc.org (or its old name, ns-ext.vix.com),
PV> which offers "TLD hosting" without fee to about 60 domains:
[ snip ]
PV> if it's not that, then perhaps they're just smoking crack.
Still a bit of a stretch. T
> PV> Paul Vixie is an existing provider of competitive services for
> PV> registry operations, including providing TLD domain name hosting
> PV> services for ccTLDs and gTLDs, and a competitor of VeriSign for
> PV> new registry operations.
EBD> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:16:07 + (GMT)
EBD> From: Edward B. Dreger
EBD> I'm missing something. By what stretch of whose imagination
EBD> does root nameserver operations compete with a registrar?
Apologies for replying to my own post. I just had a [sinister]
thought: I've typed ".cmo
1 - 100 of 586 matches
Mail list logo
