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

>>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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.