Re: Verisign's land grab - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on Re: Verisign's land grab - TCP-IP ; AF> Hmm, this is getting ugly. Not yet. Given the triple-rôle nature of Verisign (as "com."/"net." registrar, "com."/"net." registry, and one of the operators of one popular root server organization's "." content DNS servers), though, it certainly has the potential ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Re: Verisign's land grab

  1. Re: Verisign's land grab

    AF> Hmm, this is getting ugly.

    Not yet. Given the triple-rôle nature of Verisign (as "com."/"net."
    registrar, "com."/"net." registry, and one of the operators of one
    popular root server organization's "." content DNS servers), though,
    it certainly has the potential to _become_ ugly if Verisign decides
    to ignore everyone else and continue.



    AF> Welcome to the monopoly...

    s/the/another/

    It's only a monopoly by virtue of the Flash Crowd Effect. We've all
    decided (unwittingly in many cases, perhaps) that Verisign is where
    we will go to ask about "com." and "net." and their subdomains. If
    we all decide differently, there's nothing that Verisign can do about
    it. It's our authority over the DNS namespace, to delegate to
    whomever we please.

  2. Re: Verisign's land grab

    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote in
    news:3F69A8A1.17365758@Tesco.NET:

    > It's only a monopoly by virtue of the Flash Crowd Effect. We've all
    > decided (unwittingly in many cases, perhaps) that Verisign is where
    > we will go to ask about "com." and "net." and their subdomains. If
    > we all decide differently, there's nothing that Verisign can do about
    > it. It's our authority over the DNS namespace, to delegate to
    > whomever we please.


    It occurs to me that this is similar to the dominance MS has in the OS
    market. It's hard for me to see the masses leaving Verisign anymore than
    they would MS.

    > AF> Welcome to the monopoly...
    >

    s/the/another/

    Or is that what you guys were implying?

  3. Re: Verisign's land grab

    Kenneth Porter wrote:

    > It occurs to me that this is similar to the dominance MS has in the OS
    > market. It's hard for me to see the masses leaving Verisign anymore than
    > they would MS.


    It's much worse. MS do not have a monopoly in the OS market. Most people
    use their OSs, true, but it is not compulsory. I do not for instance and
    this gives me no trouble.

    But Verisign's monopoly is enforced by the delegation of .com and .net
    to their servers from the ICANN root servers. It is extremely hard to
    use the Internet without reference to them.

    Regards, Ian

  4. Re: Verisign's land grab

    KP> It occurs to me that this is similar to the dominance MS has
    KP> in the OS market.

    Similar, but not identical.

    KP> It's hard for me to see the masses leaving Verisign anymore
    KP> than they would MS.

    They have to at least threaten to, otherwise Verisign simply has no incentive
    to cease serving only its own interests to the detriment of everyone else.

    Of course, people revoking Verisign's authority for "com." and "net." is not
    the _most_ desirable outcome. The most desirable outcome, of course, and the
    aim that we should all focus our efforts on achieving, is Verisign removing
    its wildcards. (This is another reason that patching proxy DNS server
    softwares is counterproductive of course. It provides Verisign with spurious,
    but superficially valid if not adequately scrutinized, grounds for claiming
    that the continued presence of its wildcards isn't harming people.)

    AF> Welcome to the monopoly...

    JdeBP> s/the/another/

    KP> Or is that what you guys were implying?

    It occured to me at the time that it was quite easy to misinterpret his
    original statement, taking it to be a welcome to the wrong monopoly, given
    that it was posted in "microsoft.*" newsgroups. (-:

+ Reply to Thread