.com wildcarding - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on .com wildcarding - TCP-IP ; In article , Mike Andrews wrote: >Charles, Verisign has broken a public trust No such "public trust", in fact, exists. The "public trust" language was intriduced ni the mid 90's by the Internationals Telecommunications Uniion who at the time were ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: .com wildcarding

  1. .com wildcarding

    In article ,
    Mike Andrews wrote:
    >Charles, Verisign has broken a public trust


    No such "public trust", in fact, exists.

    The "public trust" language was intriduced ni the mid 90's
    by the Internationals Telecommunications Uniion who at the time
    were seeking relevance to the Internet. Things that are by treaty
    really in "the public trust" wrt to international
    telecommunications are in fact controlled by the
    ITU.

    Tony Rutkowski, during his tenure as general counsel to the ITU
    had the Internet declared a "value added service" over the
    existing telecommunications infrastructure so as to specifically
    avoid the net being a "public trust" and therefor prone to capture by the
    ITU. (See Malamuds's book, now online "Exploring the Internet
    or ask Rutkowski yourself, or check old postings of his")


    The ICANNauts like to bleat "public trust" as part of what is
    ostensibly their marketing campaign. It sounds right groovy doesn't it?
    But it's only a feel-good but otherwise meaningless phrase that perpetuates
    their tens of millions of dollars empire that does what Jon
    Postel used to do in a 4 hour a week government contract (with roughly
    half an hour a week actually spent on DNS)

    From: "Daniel R. Tobias"

    >> Not to defend VerySlimy's actions, but MS has pretty much been making
    >> Internet Exploder do just that for some time. :-(

    >
    >Which doesn't affect me, since I use Mozilla. However, Verisign's
    >action *does* affect me whenever I attempt to access a .com or .net domain.


    Try something like no-3-such-name.ws with Mozilla. This TLD has
    done the same thing for years. Big woop.

    From: Mark Goodge
    >No, it isn't. If anyone can be said to "own" .com and .net, it's
    >ICANN. Verisign is merely the organisation that is currently
    >responsible for operating them on ICANN's behalf.


    From: Peter Peters
    >>Something you self righteous cross posters seem to have overlooked. Like it
    >>or not, good thing or bad, Verisign is the 'owner' of record of .com and
    >>.net domains

    >
    >They are not the owner. They are licensed to sell domains out of those
    >TLD's to registrars. For every domain they sell they have to pay to
    >ICANN.


    Control of .com/net began with DARPA who paid for and created
    it to NSF to DoC. Doc contracts ICANN to run it who subc ntract NSI.

    The USG owns .com. NSI can't fart without ICANN and the USG/DOC aquiescing.

    The DOc is influenced by literally tens of millions of dollars
    annually from big business, if you want to bitch about and or change
    this screaming at NSI, ICANN or DoC is a waste of your time (and
    theirs). You need to be talking to congress who are the only ones
    that have any oversight over DoC. Rep. Markey is
    probably the point man for this initiative.

    FWIW: I think the wildcarding is bogus, but know better than to
    thiank anybody ths side of congress can do anything about it.




    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  2. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:02:02 GMT, richard@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton
    (At work)) wrote:

    >From: Peter Peters
    >>>Something you self righteous cross posters seem to have overlooked. Like it
    >>>or not, good thing or bad, Verisign is the 'owner' of record of .com and
    >>>.net domains

    >>
    >>They are not the owner. They are licensed to sell domains out of those
    >>TLD's to registrars. For every domain they sell they have to pay to
    >>ICANN.

    >
    >Control of .com/net began with DARPA who paid for and created
    >it to NSF to DoC. Doc contracts ICANN to run it who subc ntract NSI.
    >
    >The USG owns .com. NSI can't fart without ICANN and the USG/DOC aquiescing.
    >
    >The DOc is influenced by literally tens of millions of dollars
    >annually from big business, if you want to bitch about and or change
    >this screaming at NSI, ICANN or DoC is a waste of your time (and
    >theirs). You need to be talking to congress who are the only ones
    >that have any oversight over DoC. Rep. Markey is
    >probably the point man for this initiative.
    >
    >FWIW: I think the wildcarding is bogus, but know better than to
    >thiank anybody ths side of congress can do anything about it.


    A lot of anybodies can. Verisign is doing it because they can and
    they think it's in their best interest to do it even if it screws
    everyne else on the internet. But their traffic is accepted only by
    the willing who do so because they think it is in their best interest
    to do so as well. If that changes and verisign finds themselves
    isolated, their customers leaving because no one can see their pages
    and accept their email, then verisign will quickly find that screwing
    the rest of the internet for a few bucks is actually not in their best
    interest after all.

    William R. James


  3. Re: .com wildcarding

    >>The USG owns .com. NSI can't fart without ICANN and the USG/DOC aquiescing.
    >>
    >>The DOc is influenced by literally tens of millions of dollars
    >>annually from big business, if you want to bitch about and or change
    >>this screaming at NSI, ICANN or DoC is a waste of your time (and
    >>theirs). You need to be talking to congress who are the only ones
    >>that have any oversight over DoC. Rep. Markey is
    >>probably the point man for this initiative.
    >>
    >>FWIW: I think the wildcarding is bogus, but know better than to
    >>thiank anybody ths side of congress can do anything about it.

    >
    >A lot of anybodies can. Verisign is doing it because they can and
    >they think it's in their best interest to do it even if it screws
    >everyne else on the internet. But their traffic is accepted only by
    >the willing who do so because they think it is in their best interest
    >to do so as well. If that changes and verisign finds themselves
    >isolated, their customers leaving because no one can see their pages
    >and accept their email, then verisign will quickly find that screwing
    >the rest of the internet for a few bucks is actually not in their best
    >interest after all.



    I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    and nothing happened then either.

    In theory you are correct, but in practice it'll never ever happen
    for two reasons: 1) you can't get a critical mass of interested parties
    to go along and 2) the game is rigged. You could have every .com name holder
    on your side and the USG and it's pawn ICANN would not do a damn thing.

    "Stability of the ineternet" and all that. Translation: "don't rock
    our boat, we're doing fine and seeing the world on your nickle
    so **** you jack."


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  4. Re: .com wildcarding

    In article ,
    Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:

    >I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    >when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    >and nothing happened then either.
    >
    >In theory you are correct, but in practice it'll never ever happen
    >for two reasons: 1) you can't get a critical mass of interested parties
    >to go along and 2) the game is rigged. You could have every .com name holder
    >on your side and the USG and it's pawn ICANN would not do a damn thing.


    There is one practical difference. I used to reject mails that had
    invalid "mail from" addresses. Demon would have bounced them except
    that there was nowhere to deliver the bounces to.

    I now (following the comp.mail.sendmail patches) reject mails with
    invalid addresses or addresses that resolve to 64.94.110.11. That means
    the bounces will go to 64.94.110.11. I'm clearly not the only one doing
    this. Does that mean that Verisign are mail bombing themselves by
    claiming ownnership of all such addresses? My heart bleeds for them.
    Not :-).

    As for charging for domain name registration, there *are* costs involved
    in running such a service, so the situation isn't comparable. One can
    of course debate whether the charges are reasonable or the service
    adequate, but those are different matters.

    --
    John F Hall

    The Internet relies on the cooperative use of private resources.
    Sending email is a privilege not a right.

  5. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:40:06 GMT, richard@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton
    (At work)) wrote:

    >>>The USG owns .com. NSI can't fart without ICANN and the USG/DOC aquiescing.
    >>>
    >>>The DOc is influenced by literally tens of millions of dollars
    >>>annually from big business, if you want to bitch about and or change
    >>>this screaming at NSI, ICANN or DoC is a waste of your time (and
    >>>theirs). You need to be talking to congress who are the only ones
    >>>that have any oversight over DoC. Rep. Markey is
    >>>probably the point man for this initiative.
    >>>
    >>>FWIW: I think the wildcarding is bogus, but know better than to
    >>>thiank anybody ths side of congress can do anything about it.

    >>
    >>A lot of anybodies can. Verisign is doing it because they can and
    >>they think it's in their best interest to do it even if it screws
    >>everyne else on the internet. But their traffic is accepted only by
    >>the willing who do so because they think it is in their best interest
    >>to do so as well. If that changes and verisign finds themselves
    >>isolated, their customers leaving because no one can see their pages
    >>and accept their email, then verisign will quickly find that screwing
    >>the rest of the internet for a few bucks is actually not in their best
    >>interest after all.

    >
    >
    >I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    >when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    >and nothing happened then either.


    Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.
    And there were a lot fewer online in those days and what they did
    didn't screw up people who were already fighting a relentless attack.

    >In theory you are correct, but in practice it'll never ever happen
    >for two reasons: 1) you can't get a critical mass of interested parties
    >to go along and 2) the game is rigged. You could have every .com name holder
    >on your side and the USG and it's pawn ICANN would not do a damn thing.
    >
    >"Stability of the ineternet" and all that. Translation: "don't rock
    >our boat, we're doing fine and seeing the world on your nickle
    >so **** you jack."


    When people get mad enough many will do virtualy anything.

    William R. James



  6. Re: .com wildcarding

    In article ,
    Wm James wrote:
    >>
    >>I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    >>when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    >>and nothing happened then either.

    >
    >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.


    Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  7. Re: .com wildcarding

    Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    > Wm James wrote:
    > >>I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    > >>when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    > >>and nothing happened then either.

    > >
    > >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.

    >
    > Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)
    >


    I thought it reasonable. AND didn't see any reason to make noise saying so.

    But then I was a newbie; I had only had domains for a couple of years when
    the charges were instituted.



    Bob O`Bob
    --
    hi, Richard ... I figured we'd meet up in a thread somewhere one day

  8. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    > >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.

    > Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)


    The issue was not charging for domain names. It was the amount charged
    ($35/annually) and where that revenue went.

    -- Mark --

    http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  9. Verisign's land grab

    RJS> Try something like no-3-such-name.ws with Mozilla. This TLD
    RJS> has done the same thing for years. Big woop.

    There are four important differences between the two situations:

    1. "com." and "net." are a lot larger than those CC TLDs. A far
    greater portion of the namespace has been affected.

    2. "com." and "net." are more popular than those CC TLDs. Far
    more people have experienced the effects.

    3. "Append 'com.' and try again." is default behaviour in many web
    browser softwares. Appending a CC TLD and trying again is not.

    4. What those CC TLD registries did didn't result in resurrecting
    "boss.com." or long-defunct RBLs.

    Even setting those differences aside, this is a bad idea for _both_
    Verisign and the CC TLD registrars. Aging has not magically turned
    this bad idea into a good one.

  10. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 13:45:27 GMT, richard@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton
    (At work)) wrote:

    >In article ,
    >Wm James wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I dunno, the outrage over this pales in comparison to the outrage
    >>>when the NSF directed NSI to begin charging for domain names...
    >>>and nothing happened then either.

    >>
    >>Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.

    >
    >Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)


    I was one of them and yes, I was quiet.

    William R. James


  11. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:07:55 -0700, Mark Crispin
    wrote:

    >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    >> >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.

    >> Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)

    >
    >The issue was not charging for domain names. It was the amount charged
    >($35/annually) and where that revenue went.


    Yeah, they was way too high and it it went to scum. I agree on both
    counts. But it being aboze zero in price was never a problem in
    myopinion except in the view of people with unrealistic views of the
    net.

    William R. James


  12. Re: .com wildcarding

    In article ,
    Mark Crispin wrote:
    >On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    >> >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.

    >> Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)

    >
    >The issue was not charging for domain names.


    Yeah, it was for many people. All other tlds were free. Check the
    archives if you don't believe me.

    > It was the amount charged ($35/annually) and where that revenue went.


    Check your bankbook. It was $100 for two years in advance and $50
    per year reneweal. When the 30% for the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure
    Fund was revoked about 2 years later it dropped down to $35 a year.

    That was another travesty. People from all over the world paid into that
    fund; the US congress stole it and spent it on the US "internet 2".

    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  13. Re: Verisign's land grab

    In article <3F6A87B5.4752F7C4@Tesco.NET>,
    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
    >RJS> Try something like no-3-such-name.ws with Mozilla. This TLD
    >RJS> has done the same thing for years. Big woop.
    >
    >There are four important differences between the two situations:
    >
    >1. "com." and "net." are a lot larger than those CC TLDs. A far
    >greater portion of the namespace has been affected.
    >
    >2. "com." and "net." are more popular than those CC TLDs. Far
    >more people have experienced the effects.
    >
    >3. "Append 'com.' and try again." is default behaviour in many web
    >browser softwares. Appending a CC TLD and trying again is not.
    >
    >4. What those CC TLD registries did didn't result in resurrecting
    >"boss.com." or long-defunct RBLs.
    >
    >Even setting those differences aside, this is a bad idea for _both_
    >Verisign and the CC TLD registrars. Aging has not magically turned
    >this bad idea into a good one.


    Fair enough BUT, 1) this leads you down the slippery slope of
    sorta thinking doing it with .ws was ok. If you check you'll
    find a small number of people at the time vehemently proetsting
    what .ws had done 2) it makes it tougher for ICANN to say "well,
    golly what NIS is doing is a threat to the stability to the
    net" yadda yadda (cf. http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-19sep03.htm )
    as the response to that is "well why didn't .ws break *anything* then?"

    I don't believe wildcarding NXDOMAN back to the registry
    is a good idea and that ICANN should have stopped it the first
    time it happened, it's set a dangerous precedent.


    --
    OEM parts - Benz: http://parts.mbz.org BMW: http://buyeuroparts.com
    http://www.mbz.org | Mailing lists: http://lists.mbz.org
    633CSi 250SE/C 300SD | Classifieds: http://ads.mbz.org
    2 X 280SE | Wrist Watch list: http://watches.list.mbz.org

  14. Re: .com wildcarding

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 11:56:12 GMT, richard@vrx.news (Richard J. Sexton
    (At work)) wrote:

    >In article ,
    >Mark Crispin wrote:
    >>On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    >>> >Not the same. Many thought it reasonable to charge for domain names.
    >>> Man, that's not how I rememeber it. Maybe those "many" were very quiet :-)

    >>
    >>The issue was not charging for domain names.

    >
    >Yeah, it was for many people. All other tlds were free. Check the
    >archives if you don't believe me.


    I know. But the net was just beginning the massive expansion. There
    were real fears that a hand full of prople would gran all possible
    domain names and lock the rest of the world out. A lot of tlds were
    under the control or other governments and similar parties which made
    their own rules. the com and net tlds were really the only ones ar
    risk of being overwhelmed, and that did indeed pretty much happen,
    didn't it?

    >> It was the amount charged ($35/annually) and where that revenue went.

    >
    >Check your bankbook. It was $100 for two years in advance and $50
    >per year reneweal.


    I paid $120 for the first two years. I thought the price was too high
    and was glad to see it drop but it being above zero was something I
    thought entirely reasonable. However I see no reason for an
    expiration. Frankly, what does it cost anyone for me to own a domain
    name? Registration, I understand. It had to be recorded. After that,
    however, I see noi reason for it to expire. If I don't pay anyone for
    any hosting or DNS it wont resolve anywhere but so what?

    > When the 30% for the NSF Intellectual Infrastructure
    >Fund was revoked about 2 years later it dropped down to $35 a year.
    >
    >That was another travesty. People from all over the world paid into that
    >fund; the US congress stole it and spent it on the US "internet 2".


    You expected government to use money properly?

    William R. James



  15. Re: Verisign's land grab

    JdeBP> Even setting those differences aside, this is a bad idea for
    JdeBP> _both_ Verisign and the CC TLD registrars. Aging has not
    JdeBP> magically turned this bad idea into a good one.

    RJS> Fair enough BUT, 1) this leads you down the slippery slope of
    RJS> sorta thinking doing it with .ws was ok.

    Actually, the above paragraph says quite the opposite.

    RJS> 2) it makes it tougher for ICANN to say "well,
    RJS> golly what NIS is doing is a threat to the stability to the
    RJS> net" yadda yadda [...] as the response to that is "well why
    RJS> didn't .ws break *anything* then?"

    Which is refuted by pointing out that that is a leading question that takes a
    falsehood as a premise, and so is unanswerable. It _did_ break things. It is
    simply that, as per points 1, 2, and 3 that I gave:

    1. "com." and "net." are a lot fuller than those CC TLDs.
    This time, a far more populous portion of the namespace
    has been affected.

    2. "com." and "net." are more popular than those CC TLDs.
    This time, far more people have experienced the effects.

    3. "Append 'com.' and try again." is default behaviour in
    many web browser softwares. Appending a CC TLD and trying
    again is not. This time, default web browser behaviour
    has been affected.

+ Reply to Thread