Verisign Ignores ICANN - TCP-IP

This is a discussion on Verisign Ignores ICANN - TCP-IP ; http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0922verisignor.html http://silicon.com/news/500019-500001/1/6120.html http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/uni...7?OpenDocument Now that Verisign has ignored the request from ICANN to turn off the *.com/*.net domain screwups, I wonder what action ICANN will take now. -- Daniel Rudy Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply....

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Verisign Ignores ICANN

  1. Verisign Ignores ICANN


    http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0922verisignor.html
    http://silicon.com/news/500019-500001/1/6120.html
    http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/uni...7?OpenDocument

    Now that Verisign has ignored the request from ICANN to turn off the
    *.com/*.net domain screwups, I wonder what action ICANN will take now.
    --
    Daniel Rudy

    Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.


  2. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    What should be done is to cancel the contract which gives Verisign
    authority to manage the root; on the grounds of criminal malfeasance.

    -- Mark --

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

  3. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    Somewhere around the time of 09/23/2003 08:20, the world stopped and
    listened as Mark Crispin contributed this to humanity:
    > What should be done is to cancel the contract which gives Verisign
    > authority to manage the root; on the grounds of criminal malfeasance.
    >
    > -- Mark --
    >
    > http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
    > Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
    > Si vis pacem, para bellum.


    That would be the logical next step, considering that Verisign, like
    most corporations, are more concerned about the all mighty dollar than
    the public trust.

    --
    Daniel Rudy

    Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.


  4. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    Mark Crispin writes:

    >What should be done is to cancel the contract which gives Verisign
    >authority to manage the root; on the grounds of criminal malfeasance.


    That's probably overkill.

    This will be taken care of as the use of "delegation-only" zones
    in bind nameservers spreads, and as other dns providers adopt
    similar strategies.

    And we will long remember that verisign has proved untrustworthy.

    That won't do a lot for them in their CA business?


  5. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Neil W Rickert wrote:
    > This will be taken care of as the use of "delegation-only" zones
    > in bind nameservers spreads, and as other dns providers adopt
    > similar strategies.


    I sure hope so. Unfortunately, neither of my nameservers have adopted
    this change yet; and as I don't want to get into the nameserver business
    myself I have no short-term recourse.

    > And we will long remember that verisign has proved untrustworthy.
    > That won't do a lot for them in their CA business?


    Well, Verisign's pricing policies have already done an excellent job. It
    used to be that you could buy wildcard certs from Thawte, which was useful
    if you have a facility in which every user has his or her own name in the
    DNS to route them to the appropriate server (e.g. "mrc.imap.example.com"
    would point to user mrc's IMAP server on example.com). Then Verisign
    swallowed Thawte and now they want, uh, quite a bit more.

    Cute, eh? They force wildcards on you when you don't want them, and won't
    let you have wildcards when you do want them.

    -- Mark --

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

  6. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    MC> What should be done is to cancel the contract which gives
    MC> Verisign authority to manage the root; on the grounds of
    MC> criminal malfeasance.

    With what justification ? Verisign hasn't done anything here
    with regards to its _root_ service. That conflict is yet to come.

    As far as any contract with Verisign for publication of the "com."
    and "net." DNS data (which is a different thing) is concerned: As
    I said a week ago, I strongly suspect that the terms of such a
    contract _don't_ prohibit what Verisign has done.

    And I very much doubt that any root server organization apart from
    ICANN even has such a contract at all.

  7. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    Mark Crispin @washington.edu wrote:
    >
    >>This will be taken care of as the use of "delegation-only" zones
    >>in bind nameservers spreads, and as other dns providers adopt
    >>similar strategies.

    >
    > I sure hope so. Unfortunately, neither of my nameservers have adopted
    > this change yet; and as I don't want to get into the nameserver business
    > myself I have no short-term recourse.


    Ask the DNS administrators. The Univ. of Toronto implemented the
    DNS fix today after some discussion on the sys-admins mailing list.

    Utoronto has hundreds of thousands of users that will not fall for
    the sitefinder c^Htrap any more. I bet washington.edu is just as large
    or even larger.


  8. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    In article ,
    Daniel Rudy wrote:
    >
    >http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0922verisignor.html
    >http://silicon.com/news/500019-500001/1/6120.html
    >http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/uni...7?OpenDocument
    >
    >Now that Verisign has ignored the request from ICANN to turn off the
    >*.com/*.net domain screwups, I wonder what action ICANN will take now.



    Absolutely nothing. The KICK ME light is always lit at ICANN HQ.

    ____
    david parsons \bi/ Makes the alternate roots seem much more appealing.
    \/

  9. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    In article ,
    Mark Crispin wrote:
    >What should be done is to cancel the contract which gives Verisign
    >authority to manage the root; on the grounds of criminal malfeasance.


    And pigs should fly. Aint gonna happen, ever. It's incomprehnesably
    naive to even think such a thing.

    You people made your isoc/iana/icann/DoC bed, now lie in 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

  10. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    >That would be the logical next step, considering that Verisign, like
    >most corporations, are more concerned about the all mighty dollar than
    >the public trust.


    Nothing is "in the public trust". That terminaolofy has
    a specific meaning w.r.t international telecommunications policy
    and translates to "the ITU administers it". The Internet
    is a "value add service" that runs over existing telecommunications
    infrastructure and is all privatelu owned and operated. There
    is no "pubic" nothing about the net.

    Who controls what's on your machine and how you run it? You
    or "the public"?


    --
    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

  11. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    In article ,
    Richard J. Sexton (At work) wrote:
    >>That would be the logical next step, considering that Verisign, like
    >>most corporations, are more concerned about the all mighty dollar than
    >>the public trust.

    >
    >Nothing is "in the public trust". That terminaolofy has
    >a specific meaning w.r.t international telecommunications policy
    >and translates to "the ITU administers it". The Internet
    >is a "value add service" that runs over existing telecommunications
    >infrastructure and is all privatelu owned and operated. There
    >is no "pubic" nothing about the net.


    Verisign's contract is with the US Department of Commerce? That means
    they're an agent of the government when operating the COM and NET servers.
    And although politicians get plenty of contributions from private
    businesses, the government is not considered "privately owned".

    --
    Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
    Level(3), Woburn, MA
    *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
    Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

  12. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    BM> That means they're an agent of the government when
    BM> operating the COM and NET servers.

    No. At most it would mean that it was an agent of _a_ government.

  13. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    In article <3F7258EF.A56C5964@Tesco.AllYourDomainAreBelongToVe risign.NET>,
    Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
    >BM> That means they're an agent of the government when
    >BM> operating the COM and NET servers.
    >
    >No. At most it would mean that it was an agent of _a_ government.


    Sorry, I should have said "the US government".

    Regardless, that doesn't negate the public vs. private distinction.

    --
    Barry Margolin, barry.margolin@level3.com
    Level(3), Woburn, MA
    *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
    Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.

  14. Re: Verisign Ignores ICANN

    Somewhere around the time of 09/25/2003 06:56, the world stopped and
    listened as Barry Margolin contributed this to humanity:

    > In article <3F7258EF.A56C5964@Tesco.AllYourDomainAreBelongToVe risign.NET>,
    > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
    >
    >>BM> That means they're an agent of the government when
    >>BM> operating the COM and NET servers.
    >>
    >>No. At most it would mean that it was an agent of _a_ government.

    >
    >
    > Sorry, I should have said "the US government".
    >
    > Regardless, that doesn't negate the public vs. private distinction.
    >


    Exactly. Verisign may be a for profit company, but they are under
    contract by the US Government to administer the .com and .net tlds. The
    Internet was originally built with taxpayer money (DARPA) so it does
    belong to the public. Just like the roads that you drive on belongs to
    the public because we paid for them through our taxes. The states
    maintain these roads for the public good.

    --
    Daniel Rudy

    Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.


+ Reply to Thread