FYI ----- Original Message ----- From: "George William Herbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Change to .com/.net behavior
> > > > I would like to make a few evolving observations > about the wildcard DNS entries which Verisign > initiated in .net and .com earlier today. > > 1) By all reasonable interpretations, Verisign is now > operating in violation of the .com and .net Registry > Agreements. Specifically, Sect 24 of the main agreement > for .com and Sect 3.5.3, 3.5.5, and 3.6, 3.8 of the main > agreement for .net, and the rather blank Appendix X. > I believe it to be trivial to demonstrate that even > if Verisign issued an ammended Appendix X, such a wildcard > entry will exceed the numerical limits specified of 5000 > domains, and that the anti-competitive and code of conduct > sections will still apply and prohibit this behaviour. > Explicitly. > > 2) By any reasonable interpretation this sort of change > should have been clearly announced beforehand to technical > communities that would be affected, including but not > limited to NANOG, and was not. > > 3) By any reasonable interpretation this sort of change > should have been clearly announced beforehand to policy > communities that would be affected, and was not. > > 4) By any reasonable interpretation of safe and conservative > operational procedure, when the various technical and policy > issues which were raised over the course of today were > made public, Verisign should have rolled the changes back > out and announced so until such time as at least *proper* > and extensive announcements were made, preferably until such > time as Verisign obtained technical community and policy > community approval. Verisign has not done so as of when this > email was being prepared, at least not querying A.GTLD... > > 5) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour > is not a reasonable candidate from an operational standpoint > to stand as the manager of any GTLD. > > 6) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour > is not a reasonable candidate from a legal standpoint to > stand as the manager of any GTLD. > > 7) An organization which displays this sort of behaviour > is not a reasonable candidate from a technical standpoint > to stand as technical manager of any GTLD or the registrar > coordination processes. > > 8) An organization which displays these sorts of behaviours > clearly calls into question the operating assumptions about > fair registrar behaviour in the .com and .net registry > agreements and thus the entire validity of allowing one > company to both manage and act as a registrar for those > domains. > > 9) The apparent complete lack of clue on Verisigns' > part as to the magnitude of the hornets nest that > this change would kick over, and its lack of any appropriate > responses even simply better wider information releases, > calls into question the suitability of Verisign's staff > and management structure for operating the key central > registry functions. > > 10) Given items 1-9, I call upon ICANN to immediately > launch an investegation into the validity and legality > of Verisign's wildcard DNS entries; into the operational > procedures Verisign is using; into the apparent material breach > of Verisign's .com and .net management contracts; and into > the suitability of Verisign to remain the .com and .net > manager in the future and in pariticular the suitability > of the current Verisign management team for participation > in that key neutral operational role. I specifically > request that ICANN initiate community policy discussions > as to whether the GTLD management functions should be > required to be spun off into a separate entity from > Verisign and not sharing any ownership or management > structure. > > 11) Given items 1-9, I call upon the Department of Commerce > to immediately investigate whether Verisign is in material > breach of its cooperative agreements and whether Verisign > in its current form and with its current staff are suitable > to remain manager of the .com and .net GTLDs, and the same > set of questions I pose to ICANN, in such areas as DOC > is engaged in policymaking regarding Internet Domain Names. > > > -george william herbert > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maillist-Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/swinog%40swinog.ch/